This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bishonen. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(edit conflict) I don’t think “cognate“ is the word you want: AFAICT the Inuktitut word is composed from two roots. The first, tik, I‘m not sure of, but it’s also the stem of the word for “index finger“; -taalik means “long”. I believe the most generic word for “fish“ is iqaluk. OTOH the origins of ichthys are unknown–at any rate the word doesn’t appear susceptible to analysis. (Sorry for the pedantry, but I was unpleasantly reminded of a certain prolific Usenet Hellenomane who claimed, among many other silly things, that iglu derives from oikos.)—Odysseus147921:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
my mistype probably
I can't do the gravure diacritical above the O, but I didn't mean to type the extra I. Just oddly enough by coincidence I was trying to compare examples with the RfD at wishes and tried dishes and bishes and so on: then you came in I am surely entirely coincidentallly so I mentioned bish, which leads this way to bishonen as {{R from title without diacritics}} (at least it should; not sure that it does). I just mistyped: please excuse me; I have never heard this forenam (or surname): please excuse my ignorance. Which language is it from? Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the latests posts from user Libstar at my talk page. I think it is OK to discussions but when posts are done only to taunt then I think it goes a little to far. I am not an angel by any means but I let other people have their opinions and I do not re-add posts three times after other users remove them :). Is there a way to strike out those latest unnecessary comments. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Libstar was re-adding anything verbatim, but they were certainly nagging and taunting and refusing to drop it. I've asked them to stop. Bishonen | talk23:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
There is a deeper story to this (BabbaQ and I have interacted for years), and this forms part of the jigsaw puzzle. All will be revealed soon.LibStar (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Libstar is right. There is years of this user contacting me being rude and not respecting other users opinions and taunting (atleast against me ) in connection with AfDs and I have had enough. These last comments has been the last straw for me. And I am telling you right now Libstar, do not contact me with taunts or rude commemts anymore. Users are entitled to their personal opinions about notability etc, and you have no right to taunt users simply because they do not share your opinion about certain things. I frankly wish to hear nothing further from you.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
then why did you decide to deliberately follow me around in a conversation in the last 24 hours on another user's page on a discussion that you had no previous participation in .. If you wish to ignore me and no longer interact with me, you could have easily not. WP:KETTLE Regardless your comments above confirm an extra piece of the puzzle, I was unsure before of the origin of certain things but that more securely locks in what I've been suspecting. All will be revealed soon... LibStar (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I was definitely provoked by your attempts on again and again contact me, as you yourself point out this is a pattern of you contacting me over several years on Afds that you have had no previous involvement in, and also continuing taunting me at my talk page. I still do not understand why you get so provoked by my comment at that other users talk page considering that you do exactly the same thing all the time at AfDs :)But that does not change anything about my opinion that you could/should take the high road from now on and leave me alone. And for your Finland comment are concerned I did not respond to them on three occassion because that is just simply childish and yet another provocation from you, and frankly I am not surprised that you want to provoke me because it has been your MO for years. This is my very last comment about this and I hope this is the last time I ever hear from you Libstar. And no I am no angel and I give you back when you go to far, but still I do not see a good reason for your over the top taunting. I am fed up with you to be totally honest and I think you are out of line on so many levels. I wish to hear nothing further about this if not totally necessary, and I will ignore this conversation. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It is hard to not tango with you when you have a history of contacting me after I post anything on any AfD. You need to get over whatever grudge you have against me and move on. And for your Finland comment,,, well see you in Helsinki and stop threatning me. Now have a wonderful day :)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hard to understand the request for no interaction and I will ignore conversation and the continual replies from BabbaQ . Contradictory? LibStar (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did it one time after you provoked me for the thousand time. And I apologize for that. But please move on and try not to interact with me again for considerable time. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a pause for thought, if you react this heavily to me doing that. How do you think other users reacts to you contacting them, making comments at AfDs in a much harder tone? If you can not take it, you should not do it. That is all. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you both stop? What you're doing is just silly, especially when it's being done on the talk page of someone else. Thomas.W talk14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
as I said someone keeps replying, totally confounds me, I've had some people say in the past I will not interact with you and they meant it, in this instance, doesn't make sense. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It still takes two to tango, and you're doing your best to keep the squabble going. So why don't you just leave the dancefloor and do something productive here instead? Thomas.W talk14:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, chère, I bet you're really glad you have a talk page archiving system designed specially for the sort of erudite discourse above. --T-RexxS (rawr) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS. LibStar, it's a little hard to interpret BabbaQ's one comment, which you have now mentioned perhaps five or six times, as Babba following you "around", so you might as well drop that before it becomes (even more) ridiculous. See WP:REHASH. You need to keep AFD discussion on AFD and article discussion on article talkpages. It's completely inappropriate to flood people's user talkpages with scolding about the opinions they have registered at AfD's, or with triumph at an admin having agreed with you, and other such pinpricks. Please don't post on Babba's or Necrothesp's pages again, and don't try to keep the repetitive arguing you seem to enjoy alive by moving it to other people's talkpages, either. (Not mine, not Thomas's.) Article talkpages, and such discussion pages as AFD, are provided precisely for the purpose of discussion of encyclopedic issues. Do not personalise these issues by taking them to user talkpages, and especially don't post so insistently and repetitiously that it becomes harassment. (I'd say that happened on Babba's page, with the idiotic hinting about "Finland"... what? No, no, please don't bother to explain, I don't want to know. Just drop it.) Recently you have posted 7 times on Babba's page, 4 times on Necrothesp's, and when I return after some hours away from the keyboard, I find 10 posts from you on mine (!). I respect your AfD nominations and AfD arguments, but argumentativeness on usertalk pages does nothing to improve Wikipedia. It merely irritates people and is bad for the Wiki climate. Bishonen | talk22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
necrothesp did not request I cease contacting him/her, so somehow characterizing the 4 edits on their talk page as excessive is misrepresentative. is 4 times some yardstick? You do talk about not irritating others, so what was the intent of BabbaQ turning up suddenly on necrothesp's page to oppose me? Takes 2 to tango as I said. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
(So now it's six or seven times you've mentioned that very same single post of Babba's. You just have no respect for WP:REHASH, do you?) You say Necrothesp didn't "request I cease contacting him/her", so apparently his "Good grief, it's like a stuck record!" was too subtle a hint. Don't get technical with me about how many posts are "some yardstick", please. It's not a matter of how many posts, but of how annoying and repetitious they are. ("Please point to the policy that says bla bla". Bah.) Don't bother to try the same tricks with me. Just stop going around trying to rile people unless you want a formal block warning for disruptive editing on your page. Oh, and I formally request you not to post on my page again, since the hint about your ten posts while I wasn't even here was seemingly also too subtle. Incidentally the next person who invokes that stupid old chestnut about "two to tango" (see wiktionary:chestnut, sense 6) may consider themselves banned from my page. This is a cliché-free zone. Bishonen | talk00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
Anyone know (stalkers, don't be shy) if this[1] is a fad or something that is actually part of the vitals of MoS these days? Are seasons overall considered bad prose and not permitted as general indicators of time periods?
Why would you need to ask another user when the answer is to click the link in the heading? SEASON has been part of MOS for a long time. --John (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't know anything about WP:SEASON, I was as innocent of this principle as you, Peter, but it does make sense. It says Because the seasons are reversed in the northern hemisphere versus the southern (and areas near the equator may have wet and dry seasons instead) it is usually preferable to avoid such references as winter 1995 in favor of (for example) early 1995;the first quarter of 1995;January to March 1995. But I don't see how you're expected to remove information, as John does when he changes "the summer of 1512" to "1512". Why? "The middle of 1512" would presumably work, unless somebody wants to go to the (print) source and find what month it was, and use that. There may have been other raids in 1512, so just removing "the summer of" potentially makes this raid less well-defined. I agree with your revert, but you want to reply on talk, too, don't you? (Incidentally, don't you think the phrase "poor writing" referred to the "however"?) Bishonen | talk10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC).
Reverted some of the reverted fixes. I'm looking for second opinions, because a lot of these changes don't make all that much sense to me, even after reading the MoS. I'm all for neutrality, but it seems like somewhat of an over-reading to defer to the southern hemisphere in an article that is geographically limited to a specific part of Europe.
It's not just about the southern hemisphere, there are also the tropics to consider. In India and most of Africa, where a majority of the English speakers of the world live, there are no seasons. There may be a dry season and a wet season, but these are different from place to place. Saying the summer of 1608 is not just lazy and ambiguous writing, it may also place a barrier to understanding between you and the reader. Why would you wish to do that? Would you accept an Indian writer saying the dry season of 1408? The situation is no different. --John (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If an Indian writer wrote the dry season of 1408 or the wet/monsoon season of 1408 in an article about an event that took place in India, it would be far more informative than writing early/middle/late or whatever 1408, since it would tell the reader what the weather was like when the event took place; just like writing summer/winter of 1512 for an event that took place in Europe. So I'm all for stating what season of the year an event took place. Thomas.W talk12:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. It would depend (as MoS makes clear) whether it was something like a harvest or a miltary campaign where the season makes a difference, or just as a lazy and half-assed way of talking about when something happened. The former is ok if the sources support it and proper explanation can be made. The latter never is. --John (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The specificity of certain events are always dependent on their relevance to something. Why is it relevant to know the exact dates for the start and end of the 1664-65 logging season in Sweden in an article about a ship?
Indeed....John is correct. I would have been as mystified as Peter was...and I am guilty of being a northern hemisphere partisan as I know I have, numerous times in my writing, used the seasonal wording to describe the time of year....I can hear them now....the Antarcticans are coming to get me!...--MONGO15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Peter....looks like an excellent article. MOS does guide us to avoid mentioning seasons, explicitly stating that naming the month or perhaps the quarter of the year to make the issue hemispherically unambiguous is expected. John is a fairly strict adherent to MOS guidelines, and for the sake of standardization, that's probably not a bad thing. The best thing about this project is that the collaboration brings specific talents together at FAC and the end result is usually some pretty damn good articles. However, my take on MOS guidelines allows some grey areas that would excuse noncompliance with SEASON.--MONGO01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It feels more like it's simply jumping through hoops right now, especially in view of this.[2] Is this type of language sticklerism common fare at FAC these days? Right below the FAC talk on the paramount importance of not writing "winter", there's a fierce discussion on the beastly American habit of not writing "admitted to hospital".
Fresh from our interesting discussion above about seasonal nomenclature in Featured Articles, it's good to see you again in regard to this editor. I approve your restoration of talk page access and your block of User:Stimpy3 as an illegitimate sockpuppet. I'd probably say the same about User:Fasf14, but then I realized that actually I find myself indifferent as long as they don't continue the shenanigans. You might block them too if you feel like it. I also thank you for digging out this, which with this and in its way this made interesting reading. I got dragged into this matter via an unblock request in which I was able to broker a deal to get FergusM1970 back editing other areas when he had got past a point where his edits were productive in a certain area. I wonder if ultimately something like this will be best for QuackGuru too. In any case, I am not comfortable discussing it at QG's talk page beyond a certain point. Let's wait and see if the user comes back with an unblock and meantime I remain open to your suggestions about how to proceed. --John (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm a pretty conservative duck hunter; I don't block just because a "new" account obviously isn't new, or I'd be going bang-bang-bang all day long. I blocked Stimpy3 because they not only acknowledged being a sock, but also spelled out their discreditable motives for not using their main account (wrapped in self-righteous accusations about abusive admins protecting QG, why is nobody surprised?) I summarize: they were trying to avoid scrutiny.[3] And you notice their random relationship with facts again in their next post: assuming that anybody who thwarts them must be an admin and getting two out of four right. But I suppose that's too common to point to anybody in particular.
As for Fasf14, maybe I should ask Darwinbish to edit her template warning to apply to throwaway "accounts" as well as IPs, then it would be just right for them.
About the block, I'll be frank, John. It will probably stick because QG does give sceptics a bad name, as someone said. But I don't think it was well timed, in the middle of an argument between the two of you, and following hard upon your revert of his removal of a conversations from his talkpage (not good). A bit like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion, as another of those IPs said, and he wasn't even evading very much tax. (My god, doesn't any of the acupuncture and chiropractic true believers have the guts to use their account? Or maybe they're all blocked.) As for an unblock request, yes, he should post one, but I'm beginning to wonder if I didn't tell him emphatically enough that I'd restored tpa. Does he know he can appeal? Well, probably. He must be reading the page, after all. Bishonen | talk09:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
QG / KV is perfectly capable of discussing when he wishes, but for strategic reasons has a history of either laying low and being quiet when in trouble, or becoming a nearly normal editor, with lots of promises of reform and offers of compromise when seriously threatened with indef blocking/banning. That's his history under both IDs. If one were to apply duck to both accounts, you'd see one person masquerading as monozygotic twins..... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hang on: You asked me for my email address, I gave it, I should expect you to be polite by giving you the privilege of knowing it (when I don't advertise it on Wikipedia) and you abuse it.
Now, User:BDD had suggested a couple of months ago that someone had been impersonating me since it was not my style. I checked but couldn't find that was the case, so I imagine it was mine, but it is possible. The only time I have ever sworn (in what I would regard as swear words such as F; which many people seem to use as commas) in the many years I have edited WP is to express my extreme discontent with this hounding by a few admins who have a different opinion from mine. Even though I have done my research offer an opinion – often several which negate the others – for others to choose. I thought it was redirects for discussion, not redirects for imposition, and is certainly not Redirects for deletion, no matter what the sidebar says.
I probably pushed that point rather strongly. When I come to' RfD with refs, researched, before bringing the discussion, I am told I am WP:TOOLONG. Not my fault people have short screens and short attention spans. If i come with an allusion to another relevant topic that has the same relationship, I am told it is irrelevant, even though I point out what relationship it has (a kinda law of similar triangles): a redirect we should but haven't to similar triangle: A is to B as C is to D; a [[ratio] (from which we get the rational numbers and the idea of being rational, although that is a back formation of rationale, by the way, but comes from the same root). If I bring special knowledge and declare an interest in having that, I am told I am up my own backside for showing offset: WP:RS means I cannot quote means I cannot even quote what someone else has written but have to quote what someone else as said about someone else writing it, i.e. gossip. So we have an enyclopaedia founded on gossip. A successful one but ultimatel if one cannot go to the horse's mouth then useless.
But if I am humble and edit without commenting, I am told I should have made it clear. The other two pillars, WP:N and WP:V are equally dodgy in practice. WP:N means "is the person who said this someone you might of heard of?", so Oprah Winfrey's chat show applies but an expert in numismatism or calisthenics doesn't, and it is not a triangle in the first place since WP:V is just WP:N and WP:RS in a straight line. (Mathematically that is a triangle but rather a special case.)
I am not out to win and don't need to. I tried to improve the Wikipedia for the last eight years. I am not saying I always succeeded.
Do you know how much shit I have to take from it? I have the pleasure, on balance, to have contributed and have people thanking me for doing so. They used to thank with a brief message, and perhaps how we could proceed togethere to make it even better... I went to libraries and sourced books and even bought books (second hand) to improve articles. Now one just hits "thank" and that is enough. No, it is not enough.
I have given you the courtesy of a reply. Now you are an admin, I blanked my account, please delete my account.
S.
Please don't babble and maunder on my page. What do you mean by posting a section called "e-mail harassment" here and talking about me "abusing" the e-mail addy you confided to me? As if I'd been harassing you by e-mail? I've written two e-mails to you, ever, in which I tried to explain certain things to you that I didn't want to tell you in public. *You* have e-mailed *me* ten times. Do you realise I have also given *you* the confidence of *my* e-mail address (and I'm sorry I did)? I don't "advertise" it on Wikipedia either.
As an admin, there's nothing more I can do about your account than what I already described in my e-mail of May 27. But since you're still in good standing (=not blocked), you can vanish for good from Wikipedia, if you're sure that's what you want to do. Read all about it here and follow the instructions. Bishonen | talk22:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC).
Interesting response. To paraphrase: "I haven't done anything wrong, it's the others (the Christians). Edit warring is bad, reverting is bad, but I think it's ok if I make these 2 reverts." Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dennis...see that tank up top...that's my tank and I operate it...but dealing with me and my tank is far better than dealing with some of Bishonen's more powerful allies....so watch yer step partner.--MONGO14:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bish. Would you mind taking a look at IP 85.197.52.156, a Wikilawyering "new" IP from Köln/Cologne, Germany (see discussion my talk page), to see if the actions and the geolocation ring any bells for you? Because it is definitely not a new user, and you seem to have a knack for spotting new incarnations of old users (remember TE?). I have a faint memory of having encountered an indefinitely blocked or banned user from that part of Germany, but my memories of that encounter are very faint. Thomas.W talk18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've always thought myself remarkable for my lack of sock sense, so I'm glad you noticed my unique TE feat (where I think I followed an SPI back inte the archives, and there was TE, bold as brass, no intuition needed). A MOS nerd in Cologne? Sorry, no, it doesn't ring a bell. I think I agree with them about removing the bolding, though. But their claim to know all about the MOS seems a little weakly founded, in that they don't know it's (of course) not a policy. Accusing you of "policy-violating" edits was a bit silly. My taste in tea is more vulgar than yours,[5] almost kitschy. Have you tried strawberry tea with a lime leaf in it? I like to eat a lot of jam and cheese with that. The combo would cheer up a tiger. Bishonen | talk21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
The Lapsang Souchong satt bra, with a piece of fullkornsbröd topped with Kavli Kyckling & Baconost. I guess I haven't adjusted yet to not working 9-5 anymore, because being retired isn't as fun as I thought it would be. Thomas.W talk21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
asmallworld protection
Hey Bishonen, I saw that the protection expired on the asmallworld page. I know when you spoke to IIIraute and me you mentioned such protection would be ongoing. I don't know if you intended it to become unlocked or not. I just wanted to notify you. Since it became unlocked an IP has been editing it and deleting sourced material and adding unsourced material. I only removed/restored the more heavy handed moves of the IP. Anyway, if your initial intention was to protect the page indefinetley you should reprotect it. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for letting me know. I actually never semi'd the page, I merely fullprotected it for a couple of weeks, timing it to expire at the same time as User:Ymblanter's semiprotection would have. Complicated? Yes — the log, here, makes it clearer.
The IP isn't necessarily trying to disrupt the article, even though they don't know about Wikipedia sourcing (you see how they attempt to refer to a source in the edit summary here?), or about how to write in an explanatory way for the common reader in an encyclopedia ( for instance, I have no idea what they mean by "assets = The World's Finest Clubs AG (November 2012)"). Perhaps you can educate them? They might blossom into a useful editor, I don't see why not. I've written on their page, suggesting a few things, but they're going to need more practical help than that. Bishonen | talk22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC).
I see they came back from a different IP, either without having read my note (the most likely scenario) or having ignored it. A pity it's so hopeless to try to communicate with dynamic IPs, because I still think they may mean to be helpful. But I'm not going to chase after them trying to get lucky and have them actually read a note from me, and I obviously can't expect you to do that, either. (We should require registration to edit Wikipedia IMO, not least because of cases like this.) I agree with your request for semi at WP:RFPP and with Kelapstick's action on it. Bishonen | talk14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
Thanks
Hi. Just to say thank you for your swift action in the case of User:AHLM13. Have a great day!
And thank you very much for the report. I wish I, or I suppose any admin, had paid attention to it sooner, because there is now a lot of work to do reverting those unconstructive reverts. I see NeilN has started. Bishonen | talk 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC). P.S., you'd thinkJohnuniq was an admin, wouldn't you? But he's not. Bishonen | talk14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
clear gaming
[6] with edit summary Reverted 1 edit by Collect (talk): Rv WP:OR -- a very surprising BLP violation by this editor...
I suggest is gaming here. Especially with his talk page comment: This edit amounts to WP:SYNTH and is thus a BLP violation. Please do not repeat it. And please be mindful of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Inasmuch as he asked for the claim that "Santorum is a Catholic" to be cited, so I cited everything under the sun, and used separate sentences to boot. The edits which it replaced were [7] and [8] which appeared UNDUE as the issue of euthanasia is the teachings of his church. This is the type of thing I face every day -- and frequently from the same folks, and I rather think their intent is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
What, another article? Sorry, I don't much feel like reviewing that one, your editing of it, Nomoskedasticity's editing of it (there, I've pinged him for you), and on and on... and without that, I can hardly comment. Are you saying that you "facing stuff like that everyday" is an explanation of your BLP ruleslawyering and your combative sarcastic tone on the AN3RR noticeboard — is that your message here on my page? If so, I can understand what you mean. I can recommend a cup of tea and hanging with some nice people. You know, decompressing. Too much inhalation of the polluted air around the political articles on Wikipedia can't be good for anybody's temper. I wonder if the ongoing RFAR will help, but I can't say I'm really optimistic. Political passions on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit are bound to reflect political passions IRL.
I hoped you'd read my AN3 comment as emphasising your clean three-and-a-half year block log, but it seems you saw chiefly my description of your old blocks, which I meant to mention only to dismiss, as being, you know, old. Your response even italicised the words "more than three years ago", practically a fucking quote from my own first words, as if to awaken me to some novelty. I'll have to work some more on my emphasis and focus. But I'll stop typing now and go have some tea myself. Who's Nomo? (But this is not really meant to continue a conversation, in case ending on a question sounds like it. Please reply if and how you wish, but I think I'm done.) Bishonen | talk16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC).
Hello most honorable Ms. Bish and family.
I was out and about on wiki - and wanted to drop by to wish you well. I did go see the new Godzilla movie (on opening day) ... WOW ... FANTASTIC!!!
Hope you and yours are doing well -- All my best always,
See here. I left a message on their talk. to which they replied here and then proceeded to revert the edit. The "data" added by the user is consistent with editing pattern of Ansegam with citations added from 'books.google.es'. If it's a SPA, I simply don't understand why the user cannot appeal their block and explain their actions. Any thoughts? Thanks. NQ talk01:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Aha, thank for the heads-up. Did you notice Ansegam has a template on his page that reads: "This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while he/she gets accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies." And Graniole wrote to you "Let me become accostumed to Wikipedia". (Spelled differently, but then the first one was a template, not his own spelling.) That's almost enough for a duck block on its own. A little more ROPE might put it beyond doubt without bothering a checkuser. Let me ponder a little — I'm not really awake yet.
What an unhelpful diff. Ludicrous system. I had to stick it into Word and use the "Compare documents" to see what exactly it was he added..! Were you able to see whether it was in fact a restoration of refs that had been added by A before? (Please don't bother to chase it down if not, I think this is bound to be resolved rather quickly in any case.) And did you notice the UK IP reverting him afterwards, and then Graniole reverted again? That's enough of that, I'm going to give him the newbie 3RR template while I think. And a "use edit summaries" also. You already told him, but if he has no conception of them, he needs a link. Bishonen | talk06:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
@Sam Sailor: Yes, Sam, it's deafening. I thought seriously of just duckblocking, but it's an indeffing matter, of a user who originally meant to help I guess (though he immediately started showing he's not cut out to edit here, when he was challenged), so I thought it would be nice to have a check, and now I have. And the CU immediately blocked Graniole himself. Noooo… here I was just going to tell RexxS how satisfying it is to have your own block button and go BANG BANG… and Reaper Eternal went and stole my sockthunder! :-( Never mind, I go indef the master now. Unbelievable guy. You'd think he could at least have found an open proxy in China or summat. Bishonen | talk14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
PS, just drop a note here if anybody should notice new Ansegam socks at these articles. I won't make a song and dance with checkuser again. And thank you, Thomas, for procuring me some breathing space with the 3RR. [/me stuffs Thomas, RexxS, Sam, NQ, and Reaper Eternal into her pocket. I mean into Bishzilla's pocket! She especially likes to have a good selection of checkusers in there.] Bishonen | talk15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
Might not be of any value, but I did notice earlier today this post dated May 15, from a Spanish forum. I guess he didn't have a helluwa lot of luck recruiting collaborators. Judge for yourself. Best, Sam SailorSing16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Did you get that just by googling Ansegam? Poor fellow. I thought he was well-meaning from the start, and that post certainly looks like it. Enthusiasm comes through, about Wikipedia, about his own articles, and about erudition. What a pity he wasn't able to adjust to our ways. :-( Bishonen | talk17:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
Right you are. And how ironic is it that he tried to canvass off-wiki for co-editors considering that he could have had a dozen friends here and have been held in high esteem for his knowledge and hard work. Alas, WP:ACADEME. Best, Sam SailorSing18:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little late, but glad to see everything resolved quickly, just like you said it would. Like Sam Sailor said, he could have been an asset with his knowledge and hard work, had he worked well within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines. I have been keeping a tab on the foroches forum thread ever since Ansegam got blocked, to see if there was any mention of edit warring or sock puppetry, but couldn't find any. The user Graniole was created merely two minutes after the last edit by Ansegam's IP and the first edit was to this article. The style of writing, adding lengthy non-formatted url citations from google books (spanish), constantly reverting edits with no edit summaries were dead giveaways. However I gave the user a chance to come clean by providing some context about the whole situation on their talk in order to dissuade them from making further edits and let the situation resolve itself. However they decided to create a new persona, claim ignorance and rightly characterised it as "a battleground between one user and the rest of Wikipedia0s community" - and that really rubbed me the wrong way along with Ansegam's prior attitude. Thanks for taking care of this. NQ talk20:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw him. Never mind the IPs, we could get the registered socks checkusered. [Checks pocket for little checkusers. Sure, a good flock of them. They're playing poker in there! Cute little fellows!] Hang on, I'm trying to think. That loud quacking noise is very distracting. Bishonen | talk12:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC).
Well, on sv.wiki a focus on the Swedish skogssamer is natural, but surely on en you need to bring in Norway and Finland under this umbrella? That may be a lot to ask, since you're obviously starting from the Swedish article. If you want it to be about Sweden exclusively, the intro could acknowledge prominently that there are wood sami in Norway and Finland also (but this article is going to be about Sweden). I was going to suggest you could acknowledge it in the article name, but since the name is a Swedish word, maybe it's allright as it is.
I've copyedited the lead some, except the bit about how Manker in the early 1900's found only one remaining habitation (kåta?) which "was located in Malå during the 1800s". Huh, what? Had it moved away from Malå to somewhere else by the time Manker got there..? I don't mean to make fun, but I don't understand the sentence. Bishonen | talk17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC).
48 Hour Block
Hello, I just pinged you in regard to this; I was told you had blocked me for 48 hours in April of 2014. However, I show no record of being blocked. I was gone for much of that month and my WP access was intermittent so I may have just missed it. However, in case you forgot to apply the block I wanted to give you a heads up and let you know I would receptive to its application now. I reviewed the case in question and I agree such a sanction would be justified for a 3RR I made, however, as I have not edited the article in question (Vance McAllister) since that time I would request you vacate the block. Thanks for your kind consideration. 23:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSalix (talk • contribs) .
"Vacate" the April block? Now? What are you talking about? There's a record in the block log, if you follow Dennis's link, and a block notice on your page.[10] I see you took a break for six days after 9 April, when I placed the block, thus perhaps didn't attempt to edit, but I'm still surprised you didn't notice my block template on your page when you returned to editing on 15 April. I thought it was quite conspicuous. Please sign posts on talkpages with four tildes to produce a signature, not five. Bishonen | talk00:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Dennis Brown and Bishonen; thank you both, kindly, for this clarification. I've replied in the ANI, however, allow me to again apologize for this extra bookkeeping hassle resulting from my oversight. BlueSalix (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
RfA
Thanks for your support, even though I felt compelled to delete it before transcluding the RfA. You will at least have escaped the shame of a disadvantageous association if I manage to completely mess something up. Should I find myself in need of heavyweight backup, I'll keep the 'Zilla in mind. Deor (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
In a recent discussion, you suggested I contact an administrator should this IP return to the editing practices that provoked the warnings. Well, they have as you can see here and here. I waited until the 2nd occurrence to inform you. A short block of less than a week probably won't be effective, since the user occasionally goes more than a week between edits. I propose two weeks if that's possible. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me. The original idea was for "a short attention-getting block", but I agree they might not notice a short one. Two weeks should not be necessary, though, because at a quick look at the contribs, I don't see them going more than five days without editing, at least recently. (That's quite an orgy they had for a couple of days in May.) Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC).
Hi. Just to let you know that I've made a comment on your proposal about the above user here. I'll be interested to hear your comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Good catch, Rajsector3. I've reverted Cuharyana's removals of sourced criticism and his long additions of promotional content, which also violate our copyright policy, being copypasted straight from the university's own site. (It's expected that a university website will read like an advertisement, I suppose — it is de facto an advertisement — but an encyclopedia article is different.) And, as you know by now, the copyright issue is serious also. I'll write a warning on Cuharyana's page. They're new, have editing nothing except this article, and probably know nothing about our policies. Thanks for the alert! Bishonen | talk13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
I've taken the equivalent of a Darwinbish bite out of the article to clean it up. Let's see if actually reading the source and summarising it accurately finds any favour with its current crop of editors. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice fixes, RexxS, it's looking 1000% better. I was going to suggest to RajSector that he try to get some copyediting help, but you've beautified it beyond any reasonable expectation. I wish Indian articles weren't in such a parlous state altogether. I don't know how Sitush does it, really. Bishonen | talk20:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
Request for help in survival of a page
Friend / Sir, I request you to help in survival of the page Corruption in Haryana , I am resident of Haryana and topic is notable with sources and essential to stop this menace. I make it clear hear there is no inclination of criticism and promoting someone. Even Lokayukt (Ombudsman) comments have been mentioned on the page. It is truth and having information for the world. If you are agree, please remove the template of deletion or extend the time period for discussion. Profound thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The sources may indeed demonstrate the notability of the topic, but the article itself is a piece of polemic and has no place in an encyclopedia. I understand your grievance with the authorities in Haryana, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs™ and I'd strongly advise you to read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing #Righting Great Wrongs and take note before it's too late. If you continue to treat Wikipedia as "essential to stop this menace", I'm afraid you'll rapidly outlive your welcome here. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please listen to RexxS, RajSector, and take to heart what he says. You're flogging a dead horse. Wikipedia is for neutral encyclopedic articles only, not for polemics or for saving the world. Your continued attempts to keep Corruption in Haryana in the encyclopedia are frankly making you look like you didn't understand the arguments made against it on ANI. The topic may be notable, (although the very title needs to be more neutral) but no Wikipedia article can be written with yours as a basis. Sorry to be blunt, but it needs to be deleted per WP:TNT. Please click on that link. Bishonen | talk21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC).
Obviously somebody's sock, since new users don't often start by re-formatting footnotes, using templates. I had some hesitation about blocking per WP:DUCK, though, because the master account doesn't seem to use those same cite templates, so I've asked a checkuser, to make sure. Confirmed, sock blocked, sockmaster warned. Bishonen | talk21:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC).
Follow-up to SOCK
Bishonen, I thought people were innocent before proven guilty, but have been misjudged here yet again. I'm not sure exactly what has been done wrong here. Do you really think there is necessarily one person living in a home where there is only one computer? We have several computers, and any number of people who use them at any time. Why not update your system to that which is more sophisticated so this type of thing doesn't happen? We went through this same stuff with Amazon last year. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're looking for a reason to argue. Peace to you, bro, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)02:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if Wikipedia should ever be interested in updating it's system, I can recommend some great models by which to follow, including AT&T, PayPal, and various credit card companies. Thanks, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't call me "bro", please. In view of your "I'm being oppressed as a woman" schtick, it seems a little sexist of you to assume everybody on the internet is a man (I'm not one). You have said the same thing now on three pages; I see from your exchange with Coren that a member of your family using the same computer was responsible for the brand new account that gave you a barnstar. Obviously a Wikipedia-savvy person, whose very first edits were to format some references using cite templates, an art many established users haven't mastered. Quite remarkable. Does the person perhaps have another Wikipedia account? And no, I don't think there is necessarily only one computer in your home, so why were they using yours? Were you not aware that Checkuser can pinpoint the actual computer used? See also WP:ROOMMATE.
But I'm quite willing to let the matter drop. I wouldn't have said this much if you hadn't come to my page with so much condescension. Bishonen | talk06:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Gosh, it turns out I have to use a ¥”¢‰¶\{}}≠}{\¶ fucken template. Why? Goddess Darwinbish created an edit notice for her own talkpage with the greatest of ease and intuitiveness. Well, I'll have to fly by the seat of my pants. Let's see if it works.
It seems to — so far — I can't really test without going live with it — but shouldn't there be an introductory sentence to guide new users, or they're liable to add their "thoughts on anything" to the article, or — in confusion — nowhere? How about "If you have any comments on the article, please add them to the talkpage. We're particularly interested, etc"?
I see there's discussion about this in box form, and not everybody may be OK with your edit notice either, but I'll (try to) create it boldly, if you're around to respond to my suggestion above, and it can very easily be removed if it needs a fucken RFC on talk or something.. my god. Anyway. Bishonen | talk12:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Hang on, I just realized you want to add the edit notice to the talk page. Then I suppose it doesn't need an introductory sentence. On the other hand, will new users even find the talkpage? We tend to think our system is intuitive because we're used to it, but it can be quite opaque to n00bs. Bishonen | talk12:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Oh, quite. Try to edit the talkpage now and see what you think. (I'm going out, back later tonight, if you'd like it changed.) Bishonen | talk15:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC).
Thanks! It works, but I don't think it needs
"Please add comments below" because that's pretty intuitable from the layout I think.
"For a new comment, create a new section at the bottom of the page" because they're already doing that.
As it happens I can edit that notice as well. I've made some of the changes you want, but I've left "For a new comment, create a new section at the bottom of the page" because you also get the edit notice if you click the edit link at the top for the whole page - and we'd like to then direct them to edit at the bottom of the page. Is that ok? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you RexxS. Well, would you mind deleting that bit too? My thinking is this, in all the time since that article went live - 3 years or so - not one newbie has ever edited it or left a talk page comment. So, odds are that any newbie who does edit the talk page now is highly likely to have come via the invitation button, and the present wording would be meaningless and confusing to them. While the edit notice is on the page, I'll be fielding any comments or questions, so should a reader put a comment in the wrong place, I'll move it. This isn't a universal solution to be rolled out over all encyclopedia articles, it's just an attempt by me to get some (ideally expert) input to that one, well-watched article.
Done. I was never crazy about "your thoughts on anything" — I mean we sometimes get literally some of those on talkpages… Bishonen | talk08:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
Anthony, would you perhaps like to be a template editor? If so, check out the guidelines for granting it here. If you fulfill 'em, I can give you the user right. Well, once I figure out how. Bishonen | talk09:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
I've already asked Bishonen to give me the template editor permission. Waiting impatiently for a whole new field for my endeavours! I'm very good with templates! darwinbishBITE☠00:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, cool "in your face, suckers" badge. You should use it, Famously. But the documentation don't inspire much confidence, does it? They've imported some admin documentation lock, stock and barrel. Some template editor needs to fix it. darwinbishBITE☠09:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC).
I so want that badge. Mmm. I pass 3 and a half of the 6 criteria but it does say, "Items in this section are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities." (I promise not to handle high-risk template responsibilities. I swear, I'll make you proud.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You are now a template editor, Anthony, per rationale of highly active user, flawless editing of late years, plus he calls me "goddess". Anybody else who'd like to be a template editor, please call me "goddess" below. Bishonen | talk18:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC).
MONGO pathetic monster refer to you as Goddess first!...but template editing bad bad bad to let MONGO do...better smart user do it. MONGO make massive mess, crash servers, anger users.--MONGO11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Goddess, I have multiple template edits and even a template RfC change pending. I've even been pocketed by Goddess' friend and have even spottierless record than MONGO and used less Tanks. Plus I only edit templates that are broken or not conform to policy. And also use sandbox, testcase and talk page--DHeyward (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
One question. I think I get the gist of most of this, for instance the suppressed giggling I mentioned is a prelude to this fantastic insult: "Er fula nuna är en skam för den person som bär den, ni förefaller skrynklig som ett handklaver." But what comes after the second "Alla kan ju inte älska alla här i världen, bland andra har jag särskilt svårt att älska er" at 4:25? Online translators and dictionaries are confounded by "Å hujjanemej, å hujjanedej, å fy faderullan faderittandej", if that is what the lyrics are. vzaak13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, yes, great insult. Incidentally I tried putting my extract into Google Translate, as I assumed a page watcher or two might do that, and it was quite amusing, introducing a completely extraneous "your husband" (for "er man" in "särskilt sällsynt bliver den när er man ser", so one can't much blame it :-)). This version is very good, provided you keep your eyes tight shut while listening as the illustrations are beneath contempt. I think that's Brita Borg singing. It's better as a monologue, and I think it was written as such, for, indeed, Brita Borg.
As for those words… yikes. They're… exclamations, a bit dialectal and oldfashioned (as suits the song), expressing surprise/indignation. They're mostly just… rhythm, really. But there are a few semantically significant elements. You see how hujjanemej morphs into hujjanedej? That means "me" has turned to "you". So, you might loosely render the two together as "well, I'll be damned, well, you'll be damned". As for "fy faderullan", it's a euphemism for "fy fan", like saying "darn" instead of "damn". (Swedish is extremely fertile in those euphemisms, religiously-oriented swearing being more important than in English. Anything beginning with fa.. or jä.. is liable to be pressed into service: Fy fagerlund! Järnspikar!) And "fy faderittandej" conjoins the whole: "curse you to hell".
Oh my, I am flattered by the thought that I might be cultured enough to know Swedish, but I have only a vaninishingly tiny knowledge of it arising from a general interest in languages. Despite being co-opted from a monologue, the duet arrangement was quite enjoyable for me, so much so that I was following the lyrics phoenetically while looking at the corresponding the Google translation. Initially, visually, the stage piece might appear to be another saccharine number akin to A Bicycle Built for Two -- I love how it's actually a series of insults and profanities. The mysterious "å hujjanemej..." part was tormenting me, resisting all my googling efforts. I really appreciate your explanation, thanks. Getting the lowdown from a native is always interesting. vzaak05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Making that out was quite a feat, then. I don't know if you noticed that the male singer in the duet was the writer of the song, Tage Danielsson. Creative guy, dead too soon. If you want to challenge yourself some more you might try Elektricitetsvisan. :-) Bishonen | talk08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC).
I found you from here as I had searched this user's history after he commented in ANI thread to confirm what I was saying. Nothing strange about it. In fact your this comment is strange. I have given my previous username on my userpage, I have given dozens of links under username neo in above thread on arbcom talkpage. And you casually walk in the hall and declare that 'NOTE! THIS IS Neo.!'. So are you going to block me or should I continue banging my head against gang of anti-Indians and anti-Hinduism admins/users? Abhi (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute... If those admins delete my posts on arbcom talkpage, then it would flame me and I will come back with IP or new username even after block. Those admins use alien tricks to flame users and then block or ban him. So first, restrain them or please wait. Abhi (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
[Light breaks.] Oh, what I took as a challenge to block you was a request for a self-requested block? Sorry. I don't do those blocks conditionally, but on request as per my page User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks. Please read it. Mind you, your threat to sock indefinitely if "those admins" (who?) "flame" you (I don't think you mean "flame", really) is almost enough to make me block you without any request. But for the moment I'll do nothing, unless/until you come back with an unconditional request where you indicate you accept my conditions for self-requested blocks. In the meantime, please refrain from voicing personal attacks and conspiracy theories about other users. I know you haven't tried to hide your previous account, but you didn't make it clear in any visible way on the arbitration talkpage — not everybody clicks on links — so please don't take offense at my pointing it out. Bishonen | talk16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC).
Sitush ANI complaint #36785
A clueless complaint in Aisle 2, of the paid-editing sort. I mentioned your sadly defunct Clueless Complaints about Sitush subpage. Acroterion(talk)03:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, I didn't know Sitush was a brahmin,[15] I'll be more respectful. About the clueless complaints noticeboard, some asshole hassled me about it on RfD, so I defuncted it. I guess it had got a little old anyway. Bishonen | talk09:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
Right. But please tell me who it was I blocked for the same thing before, so I can take a look at the range. I block so many! [Lovingly applies extra lick of polish to her well-worn cherrywood block button.] Bishonen | talk18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
Gente Totalmente Dispuesta (es:GTD Group) seems to be principally a business ISP; VTR Broadband (VTR (telecom company)) seems to have a strong presence in the home market. There's a reasonable chance you got both locations, unless the Chile vandal has figured out how to edit with a mobile phone. If so, could you ask him to explain it to me before you block him? --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Editing on a mobile phone is hopeless, but many modern smartphones can be configured to serve as a wireless hub, letting you surf on a laptop, using the Internet connection of the mobile phone. And it's easy to configure, all you need to do is to read the phone manual and then tick a box in the settings on the phone (that's what I did on my Samsung). Thomas.W talk21:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
All you need to do is read the phone manual?? [Still trying to get past the first page on her Samsung tablet manual.] But yes, editing on a touchscreen is indeed hopeless. Bishonen | talk21:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
I've got myself a tablet too, but since I'm not particularly fond of on-screen keyboards I got a tablet with a keyboard dock that turns it into a 10" midget laptop. I hardly ever use it for anything that requires typing, though. Thomas.W talk21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Aaargh, no, not the drahmah boards - what did I do to deserve that? Thanks for the tip, Thomas; unfortunately, here in the UK some of our mobile ISPs (I'd better not mention my old mobile provider) don't allow you to use your phone for tethering. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How would they be able to tell? The only way to tell would be if they were packet-sniffing, looking for the identification tag of your web browser, indicating a desktop/laptop version of the browser (I'm typing this on my 10" "midget laptop" using Chrome for Android and tethering, with the web browser set to show the desktop version of WP and not the mobile version...). --Thomas.W.mobiletalk21:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh they know, I assure you. Here's a typical tethering policy that forbids tethering on unlimited data plans, and clearly shows that they look for it. Another mobile data provider that I won't name forbids any tethering at all. It may be worth checking your own T&C. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
WordGirl IP user
Hi, Bishonen. We've got a problematic IP hopper originating from Zapata, Texas. He has repeatedly added the May I Have a Word episodes? to the List of WordGirl episodes article, but it is unsourced, and has added the May I Have a Word critics into film articles ([16], [17]). I consider the IP's edits as problematic. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My lord, do you think you could ask another admin, please? I find those kinds of articles/lists, including their sourcing, so impenetrable. It's almost like asking me to handle a footballer article. (I avoid those even at RFPP, I'm afraid.) Sorry. Bishonen | talk20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
The user I1990k is a WP:NINJA who refused to negotiate the reverting of the collage. There was a consensus established a few months ago to change the massive to collage to a smaller one with ethnic Russians only. The massive amount of text regarding Soviet cinema violates WP:POINT and focuses on a country's cinema rather than an ethnic group's culture. I've already reported User:I1990k for edit warring and I'd appreciate it if you understood the situation better. Khazar (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Admins are talking to the user at User talk:Ezzex and I added a formal discretionary sanctions notification. There should be no need to take any further action at the moment. I'm replying because Bishonen is on a wikibreak (see the message at the top of this page). Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried the headline generator (getting "ARE CHAVS TURNING YOUR PETS GAY?" on my first try) but it wasn't particularly funny, maybe because the headlines you see every day in the UK make no more sense than the ones from the generator. Thomas.W talk20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a little disappointing that there's nothing about Sitush in that generator. Still, and while it doesn't cause cancer, the genuine headline in re the political leaders meeting at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela remains very nice: Obama and Castro agree on same-sex marriage. Perhaps from CNN. User:Tony1 showed it to me. Bishonen | talk13:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC).
Amazingly, perhaps, this recent effort is the first time I can recall being called a Nazi. I do believe that Mr Blunkett was referred to in similar terms on a few occasions and, given that he is older than me, I may yet catch him up. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Problems continue at Chauhan
Yes, the problems continue at Chauhan. Most recently, it is Kggochar (talk·contribs), who has just yet again changed the article despite what the sources say and despite not offering a source that demonstrates an alternate opinion. I left them a sanctions warning here a couple of days ago because they've been making similar unsourced/anti-source pro-Gurjar edits on and off for months now and have shown no sign of discussing them except for a few minutes in January.
I'll keep an eye on it, but note that their last edit so far was made just after your warning + general sanctions template. In other words, they could easily have made the edit, and only then seen the warning (through getting an alert). So, I don't think I should do anything right now, but one more of the same and (if I'm around for it) they'll get a guided missile across the bows. Incidentally, do you take this user to be related to you-know-who? Considering they have been editing since September, perhaps not? Bishonen | talk20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC).
That is a very fair point re: timings. I'm sure that it won't make any difference in the long run but it is the right call. I wondered whether there was a connection but the range of articles is much smaller. We get spates of these Gurjar/Gujjar claims from time to time across a big swathe of subjects; sometimes they're obviously socks, more often I think they're meatpuppets inspired by a call to arms on web forums dedicated to that caste. This one may even be flying solo. Me? I wouldn't know a Gurjar from a goujon and really couldn't care less provided that they're following the sources and the policies. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah.. now that they've continued, I've posted a warning. Not nuclear at all, but the user's technical incompetence touched me (and also made it, for me, impossible to tell what s/he was talking about). But it is a warning. I'm going to bed now; perhaps it'll resolve itself, through some other admin, in the night. If not, I'll be as good as my word, and block next time. Bishonen | talk23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC).
I can live with the technical incompetence and you'll note that I've done some mild refactoring of talk page comments - indents etc. It is the underlying mission that concerns me. While their sources thus far are useless vis-a-vis what they wish to support, I'll take yet another look at the general issue when I have a moment. Right now, that has caused me to divert to Irawati Karve, whose article was poor and who just perhaps was one of those eugenicist types who favoured the viewpoint. I'll wrap that one up and see what else I can find. I'm beginning to wonder whether a lot of these caste articles need a Historiography section where we can dump the indubitable nonsenses of the Raj era. And by pure coincidence, given my immediately previous in the section above, Karve studied for her PhD at an institute in Germany that was a centre for Nazi eugenics! - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Aha, the excellent new Swedish pronoun höns? Fine critters, very motherly-looking! There should be one in every cookpot! (Am I quoting Marie Antoinette? Perhaps not.) Bishonen | talk20:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
So you say, and indeed it is. But do you realise Google Translate thinks "kokt höna" can appropriately be rendered as "boiled chicken"? Can you fathom that there exists on earth a language so primitive as not to honour the (culinarily) essential distinction between tough old hens (a gourmet treat if boiled long enough, not to mention producing the world's best bouillon) and their tender but boring and flavourless immature offspring? How can a language that mashes the two together have become the global default? The Untergang des Abendlandes is upon us! Bishonen | talk21:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
English is a primitive language in many ways, in spite of its claimed exceptionally large vocabulary. In my opinion Swedish is a more precise language than English, in the sense that it's easier to express nuances, in all its meanings, in Swedish than in English. At the expense of Swedish being a grammatically and syntactically more complex language than English. IMHO and so on. Thomas.W talk21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Continuing problems with user Kutsuit
Hallo Bishonen
after your educational intervention on User Kutsuit at Talk:Largest cities in Europe, she has been continuing her behavior on several articles, as Azerbaijani Language and Languages of Europe. The idea behind her edits is always the same one that you noticed last month, and the pattern is always the same: she edits boldly, and after being reverted according to BRD she reverts again invoking BRD against the other user, accusing him of disruptive editing, menacing him on his talk page, removing article templates, refusing to accept past consensus, and so on. Afterwards, mostly she accepts to discuss, but with her version as the stable one. Before yesterday she has been strongly reproached here by another user for having accused me of canvassing. Today I restored the lead on Azerbaijani Language (an article where I was not involved so far) and removed the most problematic edits at Languages of Europe. Can you please watch these articles, just in case that she continues her behaviour? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Bishonen, it does not hurry, this story lasts since one month... :-) In between, she reverted me again at Azerbaijani Language and Languages of Europe, ignoring my request to go to the talk page. BTW, to this two articles you can add Turkish Language, where I have removed a non pertinent reference explaining the reason on the edit comment, and she reverted me writing that the reference is "important". Alex2006 (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! So much energy of so many people wasted, which could be devoted to make wikipedia better... :-( Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dealing with IP 114.31.218.104's edit warring and personal attacks
Hello, Bishonen -
I saw your exchange with Binksternet after he put indefinite semi-protection on Good Luck Flag, and I just wanted to weigh in to say that IP 114.31.218.104 has continued to revert and to engage in personal attacks despite having twice been blocked, once for 24 hours and again for 60 hours. So I don't think that the latest block will be effective beyond its one-month duration. The personal attacks are especially worrisome and really do need to be prevented permanently, which I assumed the page protection would in fact accomplish. But would repeatedly blocking the IP be better? I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to figure this out, so I'd greatly appreciate knowing your rationale for blocking instead of protecting. Many thanks! Ailemadrah (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, we often try to prevent abuse, but it's hardly ever possible to do so permanently..! But we try particularly hard with biographies of living people. Yes, I think repeatedly blocking the IP is better than repeatedly semiprotecting the article. Semi probably couldn't have been made longer than one month anyway, in view of the page's (modest) protection history,[18] and I'd rather not swat away all IPs and new users because one static IP is being disruptive. It's different when disruption is coming in from dynamic IPs, which is actually a more common case. If the person pops back up after the one month (but I find people often get bored and move on after a longish block), they can then be blocked for, say, six months, and so on. If something else happens during the block, such as for instance this person discovers how to change their IP, then I will certainly semi. (Please let me know if I should miss it.) Binksternet, incidentally, isn't an admin; I only intervened because I knew Bink couldn't protect or block himself. What he told you was that he would request protection, and he did, on this page, where I also replied. I understand your concern, but I don't think you need to worry too much. Feel free to ask again if there's anything else you're wondering about. Bishonen | talk08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC).
Hello Bish. Could you please take a look at Vikings and Talk:Vikings. There's a POV-pushing new editor there, Wikifiveoh, who seems to have totally lost it. They have repeatedly been removing the British Isles from the intro of the article, claiming that it's offensive in Ireland, and have kept on doing it in spite of having been reverted by several different editors, pointed to WP:BRD and told to get a consensus for the change before doing it again. In addition to repeatedly messing with my indentation on the talk page, in spite of being told how we do things here, and being pointed to WP:Indentation. Probably in the hope of getting me irritated enough to leave the article.
The failure to get consensus for their change has now made the editor totally losing it, accusing me and editor RhinoMind of being the same person, claiming that I POV-push for the term "the British Isles" on other articles too (which I have of course never done), and so on. When all I have done is defend a version of the intro that has existed for a very long time, and that there is no consensus for changing. Thomas.W talk21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm usually the guy who empties the standard external e-mailbox, but I haven't seen anything. Then again, it's been frightfully hot here, for days now, so maybe the report withered. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I had to offer you a Kitten. Why you ask? Because of those awesome balloon pictures on your user page! I guess also for your good admin work on Wikipedia.
... what the situation was with Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends and related? I dimly recall there being a long-term abuse case involving someone obsessed with these cute films and their voice actors. A new IP has cropped up and is removing maintenance templates and making other troubling edits at the group of pages I have on my watchlist, but I don't remember whether there's a ban-revert-on-sight situation and before I ransack my talk page archives trying to find it, I wondered whether you do remember. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Checking the article history, it comes back to me. 90.224.246.99, a static corporate IP, had been vandalising these articles all over the place, and is globally locked until Oct 2014. And for three years on sv. Compare my note here. When I discovered that, I blocked them for a year on en. 192.36.199.133 and their brother 192.36.199.130 who appears in the article history are also static IPs. Let me check, with my limited skills, if I can get in via port 80 or 81 (said she as if she had any idea what that meant, but I have a point-by-point manual from a nerd in my pocket).
No, I can't, so they're by my lights not obvious open proxies. But they're static, so if you think they're obviously disruptive, or obvious representatives of the globally locked 90.224.246.99 (though as you can see they're not in the same part of the country), you can block them for as long as you like. Or, better, just block their tiny range, 192.36.199.128/29. There are so many articles involved that semi would be a pretty boring option. Bishonen | talk12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
That would be my first ever rangeblock, not a career step I look forward to. So I'll continue to play whack-a-mole, I think, unless they do more outright vandalising (such as the talk-page blanking). It does serve as a useful reminder of where those actor articles are that I need to expand from sv. Thanks for the context. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
They are sometimes adding new text in poor English and with strange emphases (as in the past), but today are mainly removing maintenance templates and sometimes removing one project's template from article talk pages. I've just given them a Level 4 warning for the former; you or RHaworth may want to step in if they do it again. I'm rather hoping they stop with that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
My reservoir of credulity that this is not the same person is getting low now. I just deleted Talk:Stall-Erik And The Snapphanarna as a hoax - supposedly opened in 2020 - and will shortly tell them so. But now I see sv:Stall-Erik och snapphanarna, with 2015-20 as the projected opening date - more plausible but still unlikely. Feel free to undelete it and move it to article space if you think I was over-hasty, but it seems to me like the same kind of writing. I'm going to try simply explaining why I deleted it. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The long list of Swedish kändis-es is a tad hard to believe. I've dropped a query to someone I happen to know at Svensk Filmdatabas, the only source given, to ask whether or not Svenska Filminstitutet guarantees the contents. If the database is more like a wiki where directors get to list who they've worked with, then it's not a reliable source. I'll get back to you. Bishonen | talk17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
I've also just zapped another recreation of Talk:Agaton Sax and the Byköpings Village Festival (the globally locked IP had been creating it with And The). It would be nice if someone else would create these articles, with a reference or two, but I'm not equipped to do so, and inclusionist though I am, I'm not sure every film ever made should have an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I've e-mailed with one of Svenska Filmdatabasen's reps, who's a friend of a friend and is also given as one of two people to phone here. And it seems to be legit. She, my contact, wrote the database page herself, after some critical analysis of the director's claims. And, thinking about it, those actors are the kind of people likely to google their own names now and then, and to blow up if they find them misused. (They're not all dead.:-)) As for the 2020 date: the director used to say it'd be ready in 2015, later changing it to 2020, so 2020 would be correct in the article. But, since you do "Swedish with dictionary" I can forward the info from the horse's mouth, if you like, with some more details and opinions about the film from this expert. (I wasn't thinking, or I'd have asked her to reply in English.) So I guess it should be undeleted. (And then maybe deleted again but with a non-notable rationale. A Swedish film scheduled for 2020? Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball.) The suspect IP only translated, they had nothing to do with writing the sv article, which I won't meddle with, since it's notable enough for domestic purposes IMO. Bishonen | talk12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
Thanks. As I say, I wish someone else would do these instead, with a ref. but I can't. I'm going to ask you to look at that deleted talk-page article, and the Agaton Sax film talk page article, and the rest of the IP's contribs and see whether you think we should be treating them as a blocked/banned user (that was my criterion for the Agaton Sax deletion). If there's still enough doubt, then I'd be happy to do that, or you may want to do so yourself, although the wording in the deleted article should probably be changed to future tense in that case before it's re-deleted. From my few dealings with the first IP, it seems the poorly translated English and heavy use of Swedish is part of the M.O., but it could just be a different film enthusiast ... Yngvadottir (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, still pretty hot, but I've recreated the talkpage article, moved it to article space, copyedited for comprehensibility (the incompetent use of tense tricked you into thinking it was a hoax), and added the source which is certified reliable. After all that, I'd feel a little mean if I immediately PRODded it for notability, but I really think that's what it needs (2020 is just too far in the future). I don't think the creator is the same as the globally locked IP, at least not with any certainty. Bishonen | talk19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC).
Many thanks. I'm relieved you don't think it's the same person; I was afraid it was looking increasingly that way. Now I don't have to be a total hard-ass. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to your note - ugh. I looked, watchlisted, and looked again at the IP's talk page, and I'm back to thinking this is the same person. Unless there's a club involved. Maybe you should try repeating your message about sticking to the source in Swedish? Their English isn't great (though better than my Swedish would be, heh). Otherwise, it's looking to me as if they're now doing too much damage. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. It doesn't really matter if it's the same person, they're doing too much damage whether or not, and are too unresponsive. I'm just typing up a strongly-worded warning. Bishonen | talk11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I know it's none of my business, but why hasn't someone blocked the IP long ago? Their talkpage shows that they were warned, using formal warning templates, three times on 21 July, a level-1 followed by two level-2s, then on 28 July they got five warnings, a level-2 followed by level 1 through 4, on 1 August they were warned twice, a level-3 followed by a level-2 (???), and so far today they have been given three templated warnings, levels 1 through 3, plus Bishonen's hand-written warning. That is 13 templated warnings over a period of two weeks, but still no block. On a static IP making repeated unconstructive/disruptive edits. Thomas.W talk12:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I'm involved. Also, creating articles on talk pages isn't a crime per se. If only they would do it well. That was why I asked whether Bishonen thought they might be the banned person. I don't like blocking and mass reverting, but it would be a clear guideline. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not sure they're the banned person, who was an obvious vandal. This edition is more incompetent and uncommunicative. They've been told how to create articles; persistently doing it wrong may well be done in good faith, Yngve's daughter (perhaps they simply never look at their talkpage), but it makes little difference. All the persistence and incompetence is now pointing one way: towards a block. I'll block the range 192.36.199.128/29 (which also contains their brother 192.36.199.130) for a couple of weeks next time, then for a couple of months, etc. Thomas, yes, it's static, and I tried to figure if it's an open proxy, per above. I wasn't able to determine it, but I retain a strong suspicion. I don't know how to do mass reverting, btw. Anybody? Bishonen | talk13:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
Here's a nifty little tool for you: http://www.ip-adress.com/Proxy_Checker/ . Enter an IP followed by a colon and the port you want to test. I tested ports 80 and 81 on the IP we're discussing, and it's not a proxy. Which my instinct/gut feeling already had told me since a) the IP leads to an ISP (Resilans AB) in Helsingborg, i.e. the country where the person behind the edits obviously lives (based on subject choice etc.), and b) the editor seems to be too young to be able to use a proxy. Thomas.W talk14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The most thorough proxy check is the one that people will do for you at WP:OP. Post the IP address there and often somebody looks into it in a couple of days. Here are a couple more links that could be interesting:
A one month block, for lack of competence, will be long enough to keep the IP away from en-WP until school starts again in Sweden, and they have less time to spend on Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not a company computer at Resilans AB. Resilans do many things, including providing webhosting for others and being an internet service provider. As can be seen from that geolocation lookup (for the IP we're discussing) the ISP is Resilans AB, and the level under that is Cygate Group AB, who specialise in managing large networks, including stadsnät. And one of the stadsnät they manage is AFAIK the stadsnät in Helsingborg. A tracert to the IP from me also confirms that the last router before the unconstructive IP (192.36.199.130), i.e. what is currently the IP's gateway router, is registered to Cygate Group in Helsingborg (and the router before that, 193.108.5.251, is registered to Cygate in Stockholm). So the IP is an ordinary "retail customer" in the city net in Helsingborg. I worked with these things for many years, Bish. Thomas.W talk19:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
So what are your thoughts about a possible relationship with the globally locked Kalle Stropp vandal, 90.224.246.99, who's 600 km from Helsingborg? Any way the same person could use both IPs? The individual may have moved, of course, but it's not ideal to have a card like that in the deck. Bishonen | talk21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
I haven't looked at similarities in edits etc, but will try to do that tomorrow. From a technical standpoint the only connection between the two IP's is that Cygate is a subsidiary of TeliaSonera, which is a very weak connection. They could have moved, though, but how do we prove that? A global block would have to be based on similarities in subject choice, editing style etc... Thomas.W talk21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Except that a global block of this guy wouldn't necessarily have to assume it's the same person (and I'm still not convinced it is). 192.36.199.133 could simply be blocked because they're persistently disruptive across many projects. We'll have to see how Tegel calls it. His meta talkpage is here, in case you want to add a comment there. Bishonen | talk21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
Speaking of "Charlie Strap", is this an official translation? There are no reliable references for it in the articles. Googling draws blanks or just leads back to our own articles. So where does it come from?
No, it's made-up. Fake. Compare LIBRIS: nothing in English or any other foreign language.[19] Thomas Funck wasn't Astrid Lindgren. God knows where it came from (I'm not about to go look, sorry), but I suspect the Kalle Stropp vandal made it up. 192.36.199.133, probably the same person, did that with Stall-Erik And The Snapphanarna: made his own translation of the title. Here, you can see it being moved to the Swedish title, by User:Smetanahue. All that Charlie Strapp stuff should be moved as well, no doubt. And in the other language Wikipedias too... great, isn't it? Good catch, Peter. Bishonen | talk23:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
Found one for 1991 film ("Flying High").[20] I figured it was a bit too good to be completely bogus. But doesn't seem to apply to the earlier films.
From extensive googling, stropp would seem to be a strop - a strip of leather used for sharpening razors - as in en rakkniv stropp. Does that sound right? They seem to derive from the the Latin stroppus (a thong or twisted belt), so I suppose the made-up translation could have been worse. I'm having trouble getting the image of a grasshopper in a thong out of my mind. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your research, but the translation couldn't have been much worse IMO. In the name Kalle Stropp, stropp is rather old-fashioned Swedish slang which means strop as in stroppy. (Modern kids including the Kalle Stropp vandal probably aren't aware of that sense, insofar as modern kids read or view this dated stuff at all.) Try Svenska Akademiens Ordbok, enter "stropp", scroll down to sense 4. Even though Kalle Stropp is the hero of the stories, the original sense of "liten person som är löjeväckande stram l. spänner sig på ett löjeväckande sätt" suits him well, especially the way he talks. No thong nuance. Bishonen | talk15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC).
I'd like to mend my relationship with you...
Hi Bishonen, I've given this a lot of thought last night, so here goes... You and I have gotten off on the wrong foot a few months ago, and unfortunately things between us just deteriorated until the recent quarrels. I'm glad that you understand that I felt I was harassed by you for many months, and I also understand that you're trying to do your job as an administrator. The thing is, I'm usually not confrontational. In real life (i.e. outside Wikipedia) I'm a very happy-go-lucky person. I don't know what it is about this place but it always seems to bring out the worst in me, but I plan on changing that. Wikipedia is a very confrontational place, if you think about it. Edit wars and flame wars take place almost every second around here, so the environment is intimidating. Nevertheless, I understand where you're coming from. I shouldn't stoop down to the level of engaging in these kinds of antics/arguments and I shouldn't have viewed everyone as a potential threat. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings earlier, my dear, and I hope we can put this behind us once and for all. And from this day onward, I'm willing to learn from you. You have many more years of Wikipedia experience than I have, and I'll be willing to follow your footsteps. Anyway, have a nice day. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your olive branch, Nadia. But your situation on Wikipedia isn't so much dependent on your "relationship" (? do we have one? relationships are slow ripening fruit, as IIIraute said of friendship[21]) with an admin who's been trying to advise you, as on the way you act towards other users, all of them. I'm sure you're not like this in real life, as you say, and it's great to hear you acknowledge that Wikipedia — or perhaps the internet altogether? — brings out the worst in you. I read that as saying you want to turn over a new leaf, and to, well… work on your interaction style..? That's great, but why not start by mending bridges with the ordinary, non-admin editors you're in conflict with and whose Wikipedia experience you've quite frankly soured lately. By speaking of mending bridges, I'm not asking you to eat humble pie, merely to change your demeanour for the future. If you don't know who I'm referring to, have a think about it, research your own interactions on user talkpages, articles, and article talk. This has not been a matter of "getting off on the wrong foot" with me, still less of my "hurt feelings" (I don't have any). Happy editing, and I hope we get on like a house on fire in the future. Bishonen | talk18:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen
I've got something perking and would like to hear your views about it off-wiki, away from prying eyes. I'd appreciate it very much if you'd drop me an email at your convenience as a couple of people have suggested that I get in touch with you about it. ShoeHutch@gmail.com Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Last September I asked for help at Talk:Local nature reserve to move Local nature reserve to Local Nature Reserve, and you kindly sorted it out. An editor has now unilaterally and without discussion reverted the move and also moved National Nature Reserve to National nature reserve. Can you advise how to deal with this. As I pointed out the names should be capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk)
I've moved it back and left a note for the user. I'm frankly not sure which is the best name, but just moving it the way they did isn't the way. I've reverted the changes to capitalization in the article, too. Bishonen | talk11:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
Thanks very much. As I pointed out in the previous discussion, Local Nature Reserve and National Nature Reserve are always shown capitalised in the sources, correctly in my view as they should be title case. The editor is changing National Nature Reserve and the lists for each county similarly. See Special:Contributions/Mauls. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just looking at that. Oh lord, the National Nature Reserves is dispersed into four articles, all with the lower-case spelling. And it's been renamed. I think maybe you need to discuss that separately, if you think it's worth it. You might put a note on Talk:National nature reserves in the United Kingdom, and links to it on the talkpages to the four subpages — England, Wales, etc. Please let me know if you need any admin moves going forward, if you get consensus (or indeed if you get no objections in say five days or so) for your versions. Bishonen | talk11:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC).
In this case capitalisation is necessary for clarity, as well as being the usual style in sources. "Ripple Nature Reserve is a local nature reserve" does not signify that it is legally protected, whereas "Ripple Nature Reserve is a Local Nature Reserve" signifies that it has a specific legal status. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey Bish, Blitzkid has been deleted eight times, mostly per CSD A7. I've been looking at Draft:Blitzkid and, allowing for the fact that it is a left-field sort of band and so uses some wayward sources, I'm pretty confident that notability is now asserted. Do you have a moment to check the prior version? I'm expecting it to be mostly unsourced fancruft. If it is then I'll accept the draft version. But if it uses the same wayward sources then I won't. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Bish. I got a mix of procrastination and a lot of commitments in real life. Thought about quitting but eventually settled on patrolling my 22K+ watchlist (your talk page included) and new Russia-related articles). Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alex Bakharev: thanks for that. I've reviewed the userfied version and it can now be deleted. However, I cannot move the draft over to Blitzkid because the target has bee protected due to repeated recreations. The draft looks nothing like the deleted version and, while I'm expecting some sources to be challenged, it passes GNG. Can we unprotect, please? - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush: I have merged the histories of both articles, reviewed the draft and considered the notability proven. Being an old-timer (mostly active before the Draft process was designed) I still hope one reviewer in good standing is enough Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Alex Bakharev: Two reviewers in good standing, Alex. I'm not the creator of that thing: I just went there to review it and then made a few tweaks. All's well. Thanks very much for your help, and thanks Bish for allowing the usurpation of your talk page in this way. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
/me is pleased to note her page has the magic power to fix quite complicated situations without herself doing any of the work. :-) Bishonen | talk08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
Til Eulenspiegel
Hi Bishonen. I noticed that you indefinitely banned User:Til Eulenspiegel in May for block evasion. It would appear that he has continued to evade the block by using ips, and may also in the process have created a new account. The following was originally posted by myself and User:AcidSnow on User:Bbb23's page, but I think as the original blocker of Til Eulenspiegel it's most germane here. Middayexpress (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I have greatly apresaited the help you provided me these past few months and I surely need it again. User Binghi Dad has made numerous personal attacks against me and user Middayexpress
4. Refused to read the policy's recommended to him to improve his attitude.
5. Put his own belief, point of view, and interest in his edits on Wikipedia.[35]
6. Most of all, has taken the dispute out on Wikpedia.[36] (see here for acknowledgment).
Despite being warned about his inappropriate behavior he has chosen to continue with it. I
Anyways, if you need anything don't hesitate to leave a reply on my talk page! AcidSnow (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Besides the above, the Binghi Dad user in late July vandalized an admin's userpage on Wikitionary using an anonymous ip ("I wanna see you block a whole bunch more accounts, chickenshit boy" [37]). This was the same ip that he used to edit war a few days later on English Wikipedia's Sabir people page [38]. Additionally, one of his Sabir people dynamic ips was used to avoid 3RR on the Ethiopia page [39]. The user later also admitted to using that ip ("it was not misuse, I was logged out" [40]). Interestingly, his ip range is in the same Virgina geolocation as that of User:Til Eulenspiegel (as on the Geats page [41][42]). Til Eulenspiegel was indefinitely banned in late May for block evasion via ips, and the new Binghi Dad account was registered a few days later in June. The new account also shares the same unusual assortment of interests as Til Eulenspiegel (specifically, Ethiopian, Native American, Rastafarian and Biblical affairs; one of Binghi Dad's ips intimated that he is Native American [43]). He has in turn alluded to Rastafarianism on the Amharic wiki project [44], where Til Eulenspiegel indicated that he is also a frequent contributor through his Codex Sinaiticus global username [45][46]. The insistence that a particular phrase on Rastafarianism must be mentioned in the Ethiopia page's lede in particular stands out (viz. "[Ethiopia] is also the spiritual homeland of the Rastafari religious movement" [47][48]). Middayexpress (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated reply, AcidSnow and Middayexpress. I don't think Binghi Dad is a reincarnation of Til Eulenspigel — they don't sound like it to me — and the checkuser I've consulted on IRC has also declared it unlikely. On the other hand, I agree they're being pretty disruptive. I've posted some advice on their page. Bishonen | talk23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
I see, well that was not what I was reporting anyways. Can you at lease do something about his personal attacks against me? AcidSnow (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you read my post on their page? I don't think most people would call it overly meek and mild, considering that this is a new user (at least we have to assume it is). In other words, I'm doing what I can to stop the personal attacks and other abuse. If the problematic editing continues, I'll speak more strongly next time. Did you expect me to block without warning? If you're displeased with the service you'd better try WP:ANI next time. Bishonen | talk00:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
I have read it after posting. As for being "warned", Midday and I both warned him about how this could lead to him being blocked. Instead of stopping he caused me of threatening him. So I am not really sure what an Admins warning would even do at that point. None the less, your post on his talk page will do for now. Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen, I have always associated your name with justice, with fairness, with anti-bullying, and with protecting weaker and more vulnerable users. So I am quite surprised to see you apparently defending some questionable language on NYB's talk page. Maybe since, as I understand it, your first language is Swedish, you don't understand the power for harm some words can have for native speakers of English.
Sweden may be a quiet and uneventful place, but in the English-speaking world, cultural and ethnic groups that do not defend their right to be treated with respect may quickly find themselves on the receiving end of domestic, homophobic, or other physical violence. Objecting to racist, misogynistic, and homophobic language is not being "too invested". On the contrary, it is the person who does not have any objection whose ethnics need to be examined.
Let me be clear: the specific edit I am objecting to is here. While this edit contains much that is vulgar and offensive, the most serious objection to it that it contains racial and ethnic slurs that foster a climate of hatred and prejudice, in this case specifically against blacks, women, and gays. While I am not naive enough to think that it is possible to control people's prejudices, or to expect anything even approaching professionalism in a venue like this, Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks is very clear: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic,...epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors" are "never acceptable". To me it is rather begging the question to say the epithets do not rise to the level of insulting a "group of contributors" because blacks, women, and gays have the option of escaping harassment merely by concealing their identities.
A couple other things. It is not reasonable for Hell in a Bucket to expect people to constantly google his name when they are reading a thread, as he suggests on NYB's talk page, or to remember every obscure album the Dead ever produced. This is just a weird expectation. For him to accuse everyone who does not google his name of "poor judgement" is really over the top, not to mention lacking in the AGF he is so fond of bandying about. Has he googled *my* name? Even EatsShootsAndLeaves, who has a much less threatening name, has an explanation on his user page for those who do not automatically recognize Lynne Truss.
If you think encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person is a sign of mental illness, why don't you take over and mentor him? Look what he says on the ANI thread: "Yes I'm aware I'm not perfect and yes I'm sure a more level headed person could have phrased it differently but I'm not now nor ever will I be an administrator so I will have to deal with being a "low life" with no expectation of respect and be true to who I am and let the people here who want to live in fantasy castles in the cloud where everything is perfect fix the world on wikipedia." Did you catch that? "No expectation of respect". That's really sad. And he thinks that's "who I am", and that he has to accept being called a "low life". In all fairness Baseball Bugs did try to help him out, and probably did a better job of it than I could have done, but the guy is stumbling badly, and en.wp has nothing for someone like that. There should be some essays or something about how to avoid patronizing language, for example.
I have also noticed you defending some questionable actions by people who should know better, and who I thought were decent people, but lately have really disappointed me. I'm not going to mention their names here, but perhaps you could think of talking to them quietly and getting them to moderate their language. It's a pity but even the WMF does not seem to care what kind of provocative words are used. I know that Russavia is not exactly part of English Wikipedia at this point, but if you notice here, he pretty obviously drops the c-bomb, right on the Wikimedia-l pipermail list, and no one even says boo. It's like the WMF totally buys into the idea of comparing someone to a woman to express how revolting and despicable they are. This is doubly ridiculous when you consider that only a few months ago, Wil Sinclair was run rather roughshod over on the same list for posting too many times. Imagine that, you can post whatever misogynistic trash you want, but as soon as you start creeping up to your so-called word limit, they start to talk banning. Wikipedia is now even worse than Wikipediocracy, where the c-word has now been officially replaced by "female urethra".
Bish, I'm sure you know that not everyone appreciates your, um, footwear collection, but I have been proud to ivote for them publicly and defend them privately. In the past, we have agreed on some things, and will probably agree on some things in the future. But there is no way I can go along with the current path you seem to be starting down. I hope you consider well your direction.
Oh, one thing I forgot, User Hell in a Bucket keeps posting the most vulgar meaning for the abbreviation "GFY". I have provided him a link with the definition...according to this it means either "government fiscal year" or "good for you", and since I used it in reverting yet another obnoxious template someone left on my talk page, you can guess which one I meant. But even though he refused to discuss it with me at his talk page, he has been all over NYB's talk page and ANI, with a most tasteless definition. I do believe he enjoys posting my name together with the f-word. —N07:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Neotarf. I don't understand how you can think I said or implied on NYB's page that encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person is a sign of mental illness. I don't know what to say. As a native speaker, you condescend to my inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language and to my uneventful ethnicity, but that wasn't even a matter of nuance, it was saying something completely utterly different. Yes, I did accuse you of passive-aggressive behaviour in talking about "encouraging Hell in a Bucket to be a better person". No, you talked about mental illness, I complained that in doing so you changed the subject. The article passive aggressive makes a distinction between the behaviour and the psychiatric condition and so did I. You've read my short NYB post (carefully, I assume), but for the sake of the talkpage stalkers I'll link here to your post that I responded to and to my response. In the unlikely event that anybody cares. Most of us have had more than enough of the issue. Hell in a Bucket, I advise both of you to bow out gracefully, to just stop posting about it, anywhere. You're boring the audience. Bishonen | talk10:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC).
Well, Drmies, you did give him a newbie welcome (after one of those diffs, but before the other). Not nice, though I don't know much about the history before that, except that, yes, I expect you do understand the Dutch language and history better than him. My favourite slur for an admin is this, lovingly enshrined on an earlier version of Black Kite's talkpage.
A very fine collection, Psycho. (She called him a psycho! Block her!) If you get repeated epithets from one user and they get to you, feel free to contact me (when they're fresh), and I'll consider doing some abusive adminning. But it's what you get for working in areas where passions run high, as I'm sure you know. :-( Passions + cluelessness are probably at their Guiness Book of Record highest in the areas where Sitush attempts to stem the tide of crap (or clean out the Augean stables with a teaspoon, to vary the metaphor). His collection would outdo you all, I bet, if he kept one. I made a kind of Sitush sampler here once, a complaint generator for the now deleted User:Bishonen/Clueless complaints about Sitush noticeboard, but I've stopped updating it. Bishonen | talk12:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC).
The newbie template was for their EW template. Come on Bish, why should I rise above tit for tat? It's not like we get paid for this shit. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ent. You're right (on b., that is.) But I'm not sure you know that you're talking to someone who introduces Nazi POV to Wikipedia articles. That's a heavy straw for one old camel. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if your in-person shortcomings are half as significant as RexxS made them out to be in his caring and sympathetic description, it wouldn't diminish you an iota in my esteem. Yours, Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that she has no shortcomings either - apart from those which I think it best I don't mention - I do hate those who repeat unpleasant gossip. Sadly, Antoine le Cole has have never met me otherwise I'm sure he would be equally devoted to moi - if not more so. One can't deny that sweet, little Mrs Bishonen certainly has some good qualities, and very admirable they are too...in their own way. Furthermore, I'm quite sure that when our esteemed Mr Wales called her "toxic", he meant it in the nicest possible way, but one can't help having a lingering doubt about her, can one? When he and I were dining (a deux) at the Savoy Grill last week (Mrs Risker was lurking enviously and sick as a parrot on the balcony having escaped from Clerkenwell - poor Jimmy all these women chasing him) I was very impressed by his commitment to civility and good manners. I explained to him, that it was totally unnecessary to give me a full court curtsy each time he left the table for the lavatory (I do hope his prostate's in good health), but being American and humble he was keen to do so - I think that's rather nice and shows a great understanding of civility - it quite caused the Archbishop of Canterbury (another admirer of mine and dining at the next table) to have apoplexy, but then then he went to Eton and understands these things. However, I'm digressing: I so very much wish that I could have presided over Wikimania, but it was out of town, and worse still out of town in August - you must have found London frightfully deserted; I just hope you weren't all too lonely. Should you and dear, handsome Rex require a signed photograph of myself, you have only to ask - I doubt Mrs Bishonen needs to keep a supply of such artifacts. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
My Lady: we haven't been formally introduced but I've been a great admirer for some time. I wonder if you would consider offering me a signed photo. I would treasure it, and place it in one of the more central circles of my Bishonen shrine. Your servant, always, Anthonyhcole, Esq. (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 16 August 2014
Hahahahaha, his Bishonen shrine. Did you see that, m'lady? This is the guy who calls me "goddess" (at least when he asks me to give him template editor rights). Does he call you goddess? Didn't think so. I wanted to say this to you discreetly by e-mail, but since in your charming pre-war way you don't have e-mail enabled, it'll have to be here. Bishonen | talk09:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
Jimbo called Bish toxic? Really? It would seem, then, that he is heading well along the road to viewing everyone here to be toxic personalities. Perhaps he wants the place to himself, being the significant contributor to article content that he is. One wonders whether he could find it in him to demonstrate a little "more honor". - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(Proudly) I am the original toxic personality, all others are imitations, as Iridescent acknowledged recently on his page.
There seems to be a bit of a drift towards assuming Eric is the biggest and best toxic personality. Bah, no. I took Jimbo to ArbCom over it in 2009. Well, over that and a short block. Didn't I link you to the private discussion page between me and Jimbo about toxic personalities, Sitush? As an example for you. Well, not really, but kind of. Bishonen | talk16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
I doubt that Jimbo's remark was a reference to the demure and seemly Bishonen--I suspect he is still a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia after that unfortunate Pricasso business. You have to admit that was rather lacking in decorum, even for an Australian. —Neotarf (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(Jimbo:)
As of course I do not worry that some content must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of civility offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances though content they may write —
Say all sort of naughty words, and who just may who knows be tight
But at peer review do dominate, though saying words like "twat"—
And get articles through FAC, and little things like that —
But in spite of all of this, to say “fuck” they do insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
(Chorus of WMF sycophants:)
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed.
(Jimbo:)
And although I don't write content, and could sink without a trace,
At least this is the gist — Put Eric on the list!
He's of course a bit annoying, and can get some in your face,
He never would be missed — he never would be missed!
In my speech I've just applauded, with enthusiastic tone,
How the 'pedia is trusted, in every country, and my own;
Though it oddly has escaped me, to ask the question "Why,
Is it that they trust articles, and rate them rather high?";
It's that singular anomaly, the content specialist! —
Somehow he won't be missed — I'm sure he'd not be missed!
(Chorus:)
He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And I don't think he'll be missed — I'm sure he'll not be missed!
(Jimbo:)
To get articles deleted, like the one about my wife,
I try and do insist — I've got that on the list!
All funny fellows, content men, who have a little strife —
I've got them on the list — they'd none of 'em be missed.
And although I make a living with "God-King" speeches to the folk,
I won't let others earn a farthing, for unpaid must be the Volk.
Wikipedia is trusted, though sometimes when I feel blue —
I realise that others say, "It's not because of you!"
So I think it doesn't matter who you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed — no one knows that they exist!
(Chorus:)
You may put 'em on the list — you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — for none of them exist!
source = Jimbo Wales, following his closing speech to Wikimania 2014
Fashions and fads change, so I think I'd currently head you in a list of most toxic personalities according to Jumbo Wales even though you do have the advantage over me of being able to block his holiness. God, how I'd love to do that! EricCorbett17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You did, Bish. The "toxic" bit just must not have registered when I read it. I'm not quite sure why all the then members of the Greater Manchester Project were included in Iridescent's list - that's a scary number of people. Still, when the person calling people "toxic" is also (hopelessly) aiming for loved-up civility there is definitely a case of pot and kettle. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The GM project people, of which there are still quite a few around, valued truth, plain speaking and results over hippie idealism. Not worthy members of the body in other words, to be shunned. EricCorbett17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
One can't help wondering how much air-space poor Jimbo's speech would have obtained had he not mentioned the "toxic" ones. Really it was quite a clever thing to do; one can't help wondering if he were advised by a professional spin doctor, but I'm sure our beloved monarch would never associate with such an "uncivil" [51][52] person. Perish the thought; if Jimbo were to come withing a hundred meters of such a person, he would be scuttling back to narrow, lower-middle-class America on the next available plane - would't he? Well perhaps not. Whatever, should we not just accept Jimbo's speech for what it was, and not dignify it, and give it further publicity, by commenting on it. Personally, I would rather be "toxic" and have a bit of life about me, than be some nerd whose only claim to fame is a tombstone saying "He was polite." and so would most sane people. So sod off Jimbo and let those that want to write this bloody project continue to do so - you just stand their and try and claim the credit - we are happy for you to so, but just shut the fuck up while we are doing so. None of us are perfect, we all have some dirty laundry that doesn't need airing - so let's live and let live. Giano(talk)21:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Drifting off topic I know, but one final thought. Apparently there were something like 2000 attendees at Wikimania 2014, but there are only 3000 active editors on the English Wikipedia. So are we really supposed to believe that Jimbo's standing ovation came from two-thirds of the active en-WP editors, as seems to being implied by some? Has Jimbo identified toxic personalities on other language Wikipedias such as the French, German or Greek? Does anyone in the WMF have even the vaguest idea what's happening on the Greek Wikipedia anyway, if anything? Is incivility a problem on the Armenian Wikipedia? How come the French Wikipedia can make do with with only three pillars whereas en-wp needs five? Why, in front of an international audience, did Jimbo try to pretend that a possible problem with en-wp was endemic across every language version? So many questions, so few answers. EricCorbett21:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Eric Corbett: I raised a not dis-similar point at Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia recently, before deciding that it was best to retire before the militant feminists really got to me. There are/were (not looked since) citations to various sources that referred to "Wikipedia" but did not specify whether they were referring to the entirety of WMF-hosted 'pedias or just to the English-language version. I also suggested that, for example, the gender gap for any of the Indic-language WPs would be much greater than for the English one. I could expand on that last sentence but, hopefully, it is common sense to most informed people, who are the sort that tend to frequent talk pages such as this.
It is bollocks, it really is, and the daft thing is that all these people who cite systemic bias - including Gardner, Wales etc - are almost certainly citing English language-centric studies and, probably, mostly US-centric studies. I couldn't be bothered trying to prove it but the lack of specificity in the sources seemed a pretty clear indicator to me. - Sitush (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush, when you make a sentence with the word "feminist" in it you frequently sound like some of those students that have complained to various deans and heads about me. It's common sense to me that those who complain that supposed penis bearers like Eric are chasing off women editors don't have a clue, but that doesn't mean that there isn't systemic bias, lack of coverage, and possibly a mildly testosterone-flavored atmosphere. We can solve that, of course, by (respectively) citing not just the 1911 Brittanica but by including the most recent and up-to-date scholarship we can find, by constantly thinking about what else we can do and what obvious subjects we're missing, by being--dare I say it--civil. (And by "civility" I don't mean "not saying the f-word", though that's maybe part of it.) I don't see the need for moral ambitiousness, but I also don't see why we would deny that Wikipedia is just like the rest of the world--catching up slowly. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
That there's some systemic bias has never been in dispute as far as I'm aware, the dispute surrounds what that bias is. It's always seemed extraordinary to me for instance that en-wp is lambasted for its insufficient coverage of let's say Armenian topics, while at the same time the WMF is trying to promote the development of an Armenian WP, which is where you'd expect to find in-depth coverage of Armenian topics. But there's some very muddled thinking in evidence here. The first point to make is that the overwhelming majority of local language WPs are tiny and/or moribund. The second is that the criticism only makes sense within a mind set that supposes the English Wikipedia is the one that ought to contain "the sum of all human knowledge". EricCorbett02:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias isn't in dispute. Or, at least, I've never come across anyone who disputes it. But these campaigning-type people - the really vocal ones, some of whom are indeed active off-wiki in similar campaigns - are mostly going around yelling and screaming but not actually doing much else.
I go fix articles on any subject that takes my fancy and that has included a fair number of biographies about women, which are supposedly under-represented. Eric does the same; I'm sure that you, Drmies, and many others do also. But people like CMDC spend 70% of their time arguing and campaigning outside mainspace and when they are in mainspace it is not so much gender-related general content that they edit (which would make sense, given their concerns) but rather "hot" topics - gun control, Palestine, libertarianism and, yep, the political aspects of feminism. They're using Wikipedia as an extension of their outside activities and, no, I don't like it. I've seen enough flavour-of-the-day rent-a-mobs in real life without having them wandering round in a pack here, too. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
What's irritating about this isn't purely that Jimbo rates "civility" so highly but that he's publicly basically saying that editors who've contributed thousands of times the content to the encyclopedia out of their own good will than he has should just bugger off. Wikipedia is desperate for decent contributors and at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia and our readers care little for what goes on behind the scenes. That he rates civility over content and even has the audacity to criticize anybody who has added a wealth of content to the website for free I think is a kick in the teeth. I think it just goes to show how little he is really aware of what people do on the site and what is more important. It's not his place to say that sort of thing, I don't care if he sees himself as a God-King or not. He should not be trash talking anybody who has contributed to the project, regardless of what he thinks of the way they behave.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Gerda. I followed your link to Nikkimaria's post on your page, and then followed her link to that old page. I've linked to it myself quite recently, for Sitush, but I haven't actually read it for oh... about five years, and it was kind of embarrassing. I'm amazed at myself, and ashamed too, at having wasted so much time and energy on trying to argue with such a non-receptive interlocutor, such a teflon man. It makes me look ridiculous. I must have been foolishly optimistic about the power of argument and reason in 2009. I'm glad to report that optimism has passed. Gone. As if it never was. Saves a lot of time. Bishonen | talk16:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
So, are you all telling me that while I went away on wikibreak (a very relaxing one, I might add), Jimbo expounded some "great wisdom" somewhere and I totally missed all of it? Dang, I can't go anywhere these days. Heimstern Läufer(talk)14:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Expounded it to great applause at Wikimania in London recently, little Heim. Here's a text version that includes a cogent comment by Randy from Boise. Lot of discussion on User talk:Iridescent, with a fine comment by Giano about clapping seals.[53] There, now you're all up to date and can unrelax yourself with my links. Bishonen | talk15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC).
Slurp
The Agave attenuata or olifantslurp
Did you know that Afrikaans for "elephant trunk" is olifantslurp?
Ahem, sorry. I hate to interrupt, but, ahem, the Dutch is funnier: slurf. It is one of the silliest words we have, and we have some silly ones. Of course the Germans have the word "Schlumpf", but that's not really funny, since one can't make jokes in German(y). Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, that was unfair: the Germans have a funny word--"Schmiere". Ask Huon to come by and record the sound file. And even the word's syntax is funny--"Schmiere stehen". Hilarious! Drmies (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
ARBCOM warnings, India
Hello, Bish. I know there's a template to slap on the talk page of caste warriors, but is there a similar template (or even ARBCOM sanctions) for religiously motivated POV-pushing on articles relating to India? I found a new "religion warrior" today (Rainyday007, sample edits: #1, #2, #3), making unsourced edits on a large number of articles, inflating the numbers/percentage/share of Muslims in various locations in India, and would like to slap an ARBCOM template on their talk page too, in addition to the warnings up to and including level 4 that I've already given them. Thomas.W talk12:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, there's the attractively named {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=ipa}}. Never forgotten once heard, huh? It's not specific for religion articles, but for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan altogether. P.S., I keep my notes for that stuff here, it's not a bad place to check. Note especially my note about how they're liable to be obsolete in lists on WP pages. Unless that's been improved recently. Bishonen | talk13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
Ready for a game of whack-a-mole? See this comment at Talk:Cheema. I'd previously explained the problems with their edit and someone else had also reverted them, so this time I just used rollback. Sometimes you just know that they are not going to listen. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
On second thoughts and a closer reading, blocked for two weeks. You'd better let me know if any articles need semi. (Though doesn't it sound more like an empty threat?) Bishonen | talk12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC).
Oh, yes. They will likely beggar about with a few IPs over the next few days and then get bored. That said, we have had some concerted campaigns in the past on caste articles, usually co-ordinated off-wiki by caste-based usergroups on Orkut etc. BTW, it is a bit pointless me templating an IP unless they are obviously online when I do it: this person has already used at least three different ones in a matter of days. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that you semi'd the thing while I was typing the note above. Thanks for that. Fancy weighing in with a comment at the last section on Talk:Jat people, re: changing citation style? An edit war is brewing and it involves two relative newbies who are well-intentioned but misguided. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume "beggar about" is a genteelism? What are you doing with it, Sitush? Don't forget to nurture your reputation for incivility. You see how, after being the great toxic personality, I've let myself slide into "demure and seemly"? (Only to users who haven't met me on IRC, I guess, but still.) Be warned by my example. Bishonen | talk15:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC).
Ah, in that case I'm a bit mystified regarding your question, sorry. I'm not having a good day: arguing with people all over this place, including socks, POV pushers, newbies, think-they-know-it-alls etc. I might go beggar about with a few pots and pans instead. (For which I have another use of "bugger": my standard recipe is "When it's brown, it's done; when it's black, it's buggered.") - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What a puny "race to the bottom" this is. Does everyone not know which Wikipedian is the most toxic of all? Iä! Iä! Darwinbish fhtagn! And now that you don't have to be an abusive admin to run for ArbCom anymore, no one has to wait for the end of the late Devonian to vote for an arb who is truly on board with incivility. —Neotarf (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Joni Ernst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There seems to be some dispute over the Joni Ernst article. I've have never heard of this person before but it came to my attention because I'm a WP:BLPN patroller. In any case, a part of the dispute that seems very questionable is this bit here.[55] In a run-on sentence, the article seems to state (or at least suggest due to its poor wording) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Ernst "may wish to brush up on her high school civics". It highly doubtful that the Supreme Court said such a thing and a closer inspection of the source[56] reveals that this is the opinion of the news reporter. I think that the wording of this sentence is unclear, and that including this phrase is gratuitous and unencyclopedic. I was going to remove this part myself (or perhaps reword it to make it clear that these are the words of the reporter, not the Supreme Court) but the article has been locked. Given that this is a WP:BLP, I was wondering what you thought about temporarily removing this phrase from the article until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you could be so kind as to watchlist Amanda Curtis, who was just nominated as a candidate for US Senate from Montana. CFredkin is there and I see he has a history of edit-warring. Am discussing an issue at article talk, we shall see. But I'd like someone with the mop on standby. Thanks. Montanabw(talk)00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Good evening Bishonen, Alessandro writing! Don`t worry, I am not here for the reason that you fear :-) . It is a service question: I just found out that the very interesting recent additions to the Quirinale Palace (the residence of the Italian president) article have been copied (cloned?) 1-to-1 from the English version of the audio guide text given to the tourists (you can find it here) and reproduced on the presidency web site. Of course, the guy who copied it did not even find the need to put this pdf as reference... Is it legal to do that? I looked on wiki:it, and the same web site is used as source, but there our fellows paraphrased the Italian text... Thanks for your expertise, I just hope that Jimbo won`t be bombed by our Tornados because of that. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Heck no, it's not legal. A hefty amount of text, too! Sometimes it happens that when you think you've found a copyright violation, it turns out that the other site has actually copied the Wikipedia article (which they're allowed to do, provided they credit Wikipedia). But looking at the way it was added, that looks unlikely in this case. I've removed the additons and warned the user. Good catch! Er, could you link me to where it's reproduced on the presidency website? My Italian isn't up to much. Bishonen | talk21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC).
Hallo Bishzilla :-), thanks! In the meantime I could also find the copyright advice ("Avviso legale") on the presidency website. The pdfs are here (very well hidden, I must admit). About peacock terms, what can I say? This is typically a italian trait, since we perpetually oscillate between self flagellation and delusions of grandeur. BTW, the user who inserted this stuff is a superb peacocking athlete: yesterday evening I reverted a dozen of edits of him, all about how simply largest, most scenic, longest, whitest (sic), etc. the Italian landmarks are worldwide. Of course, each edit is rigorously sourceless. What a shame... :-( Alex2006 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This on the other hand doesn't seem patriotic at all. Those are Rome's laurels! I went to revert it, but somebody else got there first. I think they need a note about adding unsourced content. Hmm… you notice how they've never responded to concerns on their talkpage, in the two years they've been editing? And, in an admittedly quick look, I can't see where they've ever sourced anything. This looks like a problem. Someone very young..? Bishonen | talk09:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
Strange, I always tought that Jerusalem was known as the big apple... :-) Yes, I suspect that - unfortunately - "93" stands for his year of birth. I found his account on wiki:it, and as you can see from his talk page, there he has the same problems as here (altough our Italian fellows appear to be much tougher than we are :-)) What is disconcerting is also that stuff as "the withest building in Europe" remains on the lead of two articles (the Vittoriano was tied with Le Sacre Coeur in Paris) two months, before someone notices it...Mala tempora currunt! Anyway, a note about the necessity of sourcing his edits is the least that he can get. Alex2006 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, he's got one, and just now now another one, per his latest edit (guess what that's about! No, really, guess!). He's the same on it.wiki as here, I see: no edit summaries, no edits to any kind of talkpage ever, and interesting copyvio notices (one with an actual block threat). I ought to check those copyvios here. I mean, I ought to go see if he's added the same material at en.wiki. Later. Unless of course you would like to? NUDGE NUDGE SAY NO MORE? Being bilingual it/en would help, after all. (No, I'm kidding, please don't feel obliged.) P.S. What, don't you mean Jerusalem is known as the Venice of the North? Look at this lot! Bornholm!!! Bishonen | talk13:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
Hallo Bishonen, of course I will help you (BTW, actually I am trilingual, being the third tip the German one... :-)) . I will look at his addi(c)tions :-) at wiki:it and I`ll see if he copied some copyvio from there. About the Venice of the north, after reading his edit I must confess that I begin to feel some vertigo :-) , also because he inserted in the list Sete, which actually lies south of Venice...Maybe should I read the list upside down? :-) P.S. In the meantime you could search for copyvios here and here... Don`t worry, it was a Witz, they just passed both the DYK exam. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the nice words and the beautiful barnstar! It has been an eternity, since I got the last one... :-)Alex2006 (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Re:Palazzo FAO
Of course! What do you mean by copyedit? Should I paraphrase the article, so that we have no copyright problems anymore? Alex2006 (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, is it copyvio too? :-( Actually I just meant fix up the English. I can't read the source, much, but I doubt it claimed that the realization of the edifice was started for want of Benito Mussolini. :-D But paraphrasing would be cool also. Bishonen | talk16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
No, there is no copyvio, but the language was very involute, very spaghetti-like (I wonder which was the nationality of the author :-)). I tried to put some order, inserted some info and eliminated the "Duce" from the story (he was not cited in the article, and in 1938 he had for sure other things more urgent to do, rather than follow each new building in Rome). This weekend I will see if I can find some more info on this (rather dry indeed) subject. BTW, this building is always nominated among the three worst looking edifices of Rome, and thanks God that the Ethiopians accepted to get back the giant suppository erected in front of it. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. Look at the last masterpiece of our friend... :-)
Hmph! I thought you only admired my writing on palazzi. I'm sure Alessandro is far younger and cleverer than me - you just keep on admiring him; I don't care in the least. Giano(talk)20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You know I adore your brilliant palazzi, darling, I bow before them. Alex can hardly be younger without being in short trousers, surely? Bishonen | talk20:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
Whole new? I would not say so, I just added a couple of sentences and refs... About my age, well, stendiamo un velo pietoso. I'm a booming baby boomer :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
See: [58] How much good will needs to be shown to BlueSalix before he does the right thing (for him and for the project)? Even providing him the words for an "apology"? I am all for giving people second chances, but really? BlueSalix has known what to do from the beginning, and per his last comment he is still passing the blame around and providing excuses rather than assume responsibility. - Cwobeel(talk)18:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
What, still? Cwobeel, I understand you're dissatisfied with BS's evasiveness and blame-shifting, but, after all, he's indefinitely blocked precisely because of that evasiveness and blame-shifting, following on the serious accusations he made against you. I certainly regret that some people, or really one person, has been encouraging him to continue the blame-shifting, praising his "maturity", etc. It can't be helping him to do the right thing. There is only one thing that can be done to stop it, and that's to block BS's talkpage access. I always hesitate to do that, especially in a case like this, where the obvious subtext to his posts is accusations against me (without mentioning me by name). But some other admin may decide to. Meanwhile, I have written to User:CaroleHenson, protesting about an admittedly minor aspect of the whole. Bishonen | talk20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
Oh boy, I surely learned a lot about human nature on this one. I guess that by now, you can write a book or two on the subject :) - Thank you. - Cwobeel(talk)21:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I've replied to your message. Also, I'm not getting the option to provide an edit summary to this post explaining what this note contains; I'm not sure if it's the browser I'm using? (I just wanted to let you know I'm not intentionally avoiding providing an edit summary for this post.) Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
IP blocks
Thanks for taking care of the two blocks and your documenting it in multiple places to keep everyone fully informed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure one month is enough, really, since the last blocks were for three weeks. Make it more if you like. (Though be warned, it'd need to be documented in six places. ;-() Bishonen | talk20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
Just to expand - he hasn't passed us the emails in question, but rather emailed us to tell us he'll be passing itthem to us in the future. WormTT(talk) 11:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I won't unblock. I acknowledge I was wrongfooted by ArbCom having initially mislaid BS's e-mail. I did attempt to check, and an arb told me, two days after BS's self-imposed deadline, that no message from BS had arrived and also there wasn't one in the moderation queue. That's when I blocked. Then the e-mail was found. But I won't unblock, as the issue of writing to ArbCom was only a tiny detail in the background to my block. Thank you for commenting here, Worm. I had just written some commentary to NE Ent on the unhelpfulness of your unexpanded original reply, which I now won't bother with. So it's still "in the future", just as usual, eh? I was assuming he hadn't forwarded any abusive e-mails from Cwobeel, as the subject line of his message doesn't suggest it,[62] and also, do these claimed e-mails exist? If they exist, why has BS been leading us such a song-and-dance, and been so evasive, for months? I blocked for personal attacks, calumny, trollish evasion and procrastination, and I stand by it. ArbCom has all the information, which I don't, in the sense that I don't know what specifically his message to them said. Therefore any arb should feel free to unblock at any time (I don't mean as an arbcom action, but simply as an uninvolved admin) if the contents of that message so inclines them. (Incidentally, Worm, he didn't claim he had an e-mail from Cwobeel, but some e-mails, see the ANI thread.) Bishonen | talk11:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
Well, from an "admin with a little extra information" point of view, I see no reason to unblock, especially given the length of time since he's made the comment and the length of time before he can provide evidence. I'm very much of the opinion that people should provide evidence for claims like the ones that BlueSalix made - if the attack was on-wiki, I'd expect a diff - and I see no reason we should react differently because it's off-wiki. He does talk of emails (plural) in the email he sent Arbcom, I've corrected my statement above. WormTT(talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × x2)You're blocking for "procrastination" because (as least in part) an editor went real life for a while after stating At this time, you haven't edited for a couple of days, nor sent me the promised e-mail. That's all right, everybody always has a right to disappear from Wikipedia, temporarily or permanently?? You're coming off as capricious and arbitrary -- which fuels the who anti-admin thing (currently on display at Kumioko's unblock review, if you've been following that). Anyway, having happily spent most of the Northern Hemisphere off-wiki, and reviewing the original thread -- which was an argument about the wording of an RFC and kinda / sorta insults from Cwobeel to B Salix and -- well, you know the whole thing is absurd, right? I've always thought WP dispute resolution should be the anti-Thunderdome -- Two editors enter, two editors leave. So … what do you need from Blue Salix to get him unblocked so they can get back to editing the encyclopedia (the important stuff)? NE Ent00:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't personally need anything from him. You realize I'm only one of 1500 admins or whatever it is, and as per below, I would rather an uninvolved admin review BS's next unblock request, if he wishes to make one, and evaluate it. (As is standard practice.) Depending on how concerned you are about the capricious and arbitrary, you can always take that aspect to ANI for more eyes, or on up (user RFC, or a RFAR). Bishonen | talk01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen, as the editor who was the target of the personal attacks and false accusations, I’d like to say that we all make mistakes and sometimes are too proud to admit them, pushing us into a behavioral slippery slope that eventually ends us in the pits. I’d suggest you consider allowing BlueSalix to continue contributing, if he can admit he made a mistake, issue an apology (not only to me, but to you as well for the foot-dragging and evasion), and commits to be extra careful in the future not to jump too quickly to conclusions that may have a negative impact on others. I have seen amazing transformations IRL when people are given second chances, and it may work here too. WP:OFFER could be an alternative if an unblock is not something you’d consider. - Cwobeel(talk)23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, your suggestions may be better addressed to BS than me. How about making them on his page? If, even now, he writes a decent unblock request, a reviewing uninvolved admin may well choose to unblock, or at least shorten the block. I'd much rather a different, neutral, pair of eyes considered the matter, than me; I feel I may be too cynical by now. I wouldn't object if another admin suggested unblocking. (Well, as long as there was a decent unblock request, I wouldn't object, nor, for my part, insist on any apologies. Forced apologies are worse than meaningless.) Bishonen | talk00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC).
^^^^^ this. If he spontaneously admits a mistake and apologizes, I'll be the first to support unblocking. But can we please not do the usual Wikipedia thing where we coerce an apology as a condition of unblocking? Per rule #16? MastCellTalk00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Always a pleasure to read your comments on cases you haven't looked at, Eric. MastCell..? Did you notice me just quoting #rule 16? I have no interest in humiliating the guy. Editors have pride. An unblock request without lies would do me fine. Bishonen | talk01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC).
Totally - I was agreeing with you, although I missed that you'd quoted it. The "^^^^^" was supposed to be a pointer to your comment, with which I agreed, although on re-reading my comment I can understand that I was unclear. MastCellTalk01:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You misjudge me Bishonen. Please don't do it again. You know at least as well as I do that an admission of guilt is a prerequisite for a successful unblock request, so don't play dumb. EricCorbett01:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
And you misjudge me. If you like, I can e-mail you some examples of recent unblocks that I have done discreetly and unconditionally, assiduously avoiding the attention of the eagle eyes who will insist that before blocked users can be unblocked, they must apologise, admit their mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that they understand why exactly they were blocked and how right it was that they should be, and show remorse. That's an extract from #rule 6 of my Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia — a rather nice complement to or commentary on MastCell's #rule 16, IMO. And I totally agree it's depressing I have to do these things covertly, hiding from the triumphalists with the pitchforks. But if you'd rather just take an invigorating gallop on your hobbyhorse and ignore the specifics of this case, that's fine too. Bishonen | talk01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC).
Hello again, Bishonen. Hope you're doin' fine. Can you please talk a look at 95.180.123.154 (talk·contribs) latest contributions? It seems s(he)'s back again with their disruptive editing pattern once their block expired. I've provided some diffs at their talk page. Thanks.--JetstreamerTalk00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, Jet. I see what you mean, and I understand it's irritating. But it doesn't look like they're trying to disrupt or vandalise. You remember my request here for help from a Serbian speaker? I've tried asking at WikiProject Serbia now. If nothing comes of it within a couple of days, I'll block per WP:CIR. Bishonen | talk10:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I remember your request. It's also true that the IP has had enough warnings to know they are making exactly the same modifications that led them to a block. But of course we can wait.--JetstreamerTalk13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. If they understand the warnings. Taking the long view, it's true that there's little point in people who don't understand any English editing the English Wikipedia. But before I place a really long block, I just want to give them every chance. Bishonen | talk14:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC).
Wikiproject Serbia doesn't seem very active to put it mildly. However, another admin has blocked the IP for three months. Oh, I see you asked on WP:AIV, so you probably knew that. I see you didn't mention I was trying to deal with it. Bishonen | talk16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC).
Hello again, Bishonen. Yes, I did ask for admin intervention at WP:AIV. We had to wait a while to confirm that the IP seems to have understanding of English and, even blocked, their disruptive editing continues under another IP across articles related to Serbia [63].--JetstreamerTalk11:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You left me a message about one I left on Worldedixor's TP. You didn't see the subsequent exchanges as he removed them from his TP, but if you read his "View history" page you will see what happened and how I responded. I hope this clears it up. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As long as you're now clear on what an 1RR restriction is for, and what tagteaming is, fine. I have to say Worldedixor's removal of the subsequent exchange, while leaving your original edit on the page, was pretty damn... oh, never mind, I won't finish the sentence. Let's just say I don't admire his action. Bishonen | talk12:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC).
An admin left a message on Worldedixor's Talk page and I responded apologising. It was an innocent gesture and I genuinely overlooked the implications. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A week or two ago we had a sock-puppet on the ISIS page, a Krish8, and the next day a Krish39 appeared. I was suspicious and contacted AcidSnow (who had warned us about Krish8 on the ISIS TP) and it turned out he was yet another sock of Khaboos(?sp). AcidSnow asked me to keep an eye open for other suspicious appearances. Now for my question! To whom do I report suspected socks? AcidSnow? Ponyo sorted out this last one. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, any idea what would be the preferred method for fixing the archive problem at Talk:Sengunthar? There is definitely an "Archive 1" as well as the linked Archive 2. There may be others under different names but I've no idea how to check that. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious to know how you came across this page. Was it just fortuitous for me? I only stumbled across it using STiki. For the record, I think it is very poorly sourced and totally promotional, and needs a slash and burn approach. My problem is that I'm chicken. thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started to click on links in List of companies of India, just for fun. (Compare my recent contribs. Red, red, red! Slash! Burn! Stub!) Actually, now I think about it, XLRI- Xavier School of Management was probably in its turn a link from one of those. Association for Promotion of Creative Learning, maybe. Clicking on those pages one by one and going medieval on them separately is a bit like trying to clean out the Augean Stables with a teaspoon. Rerouting a couple of rivers would be the thing. If there's a decent article on that list, I've yet to come across it. It might actually be more encouraging to start from a slightly shorter list, say List of business schools in Asia. Bound to be full of fertiliser, that. Mind you, I'm coming round to the notion that the entire project is so full of it that Wikipedia needs the WP:TNT approach: blow it up and start over. And thanks for your good work, Roxy, I see you all over the place. ("For fun"? Yes, in a horrible dark way it is kind of fun.) Bishonen | talk09:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
P.S. I only looked at XLRI yesterday, just before going to bed, and felt I had to get that warning posted. I've returned to the article now for a more thorough, uh, reading. You are absolutely right about it. And I see Sitush has joined in, good! The Avenger! Bishonen | talk09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
Oh I noticed. I assume Sitush is a regular here and started off the process. I have been observing this morning, and I have a satisfied feeling, not malicious at all, about the improvement. Thank you for your kind words above, but lets get the perspective right, I like to consider myself the wikipedia equivalent of Ensign Redshirt in a TOS away team. I'll know I've really arrived when I too get sanctioned by Jimbo. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I fixed Victor Hartman, Helena Quiding and Lilla Skuggan, but BabbaQ then made a blanket revert of my fixes to Helena Quiding, restoring language errors and removing sourced content that I added, with no explanation, so I'm not going to fix the rest of them. Thomas.W talk07:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen: Just a note that your proposal for deletion of Haldiram's has been declined. Upon source searches, the company is notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. In the event that you're not aware of this, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. Rather, notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources about a topic. Please consider source searching prior to proposing articles for deletion, if you haven't already been doing so. Thank you for your consideration. NorthAmerica100021:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, it really is a bit rich, trying to level criticism here. The article was created in May 2006 and languished referenceless until yesterday, despite a {{refimprove}} that had been there since October 2013. As it seems that the threat of deletion is the only thing that gets articles referenced, you ought to be on your knees offering prayers of thanks to 'Shonen for providing the trigger for your frenetic activity on the article. The article is much improved, thank you. Now it's your turn to show a little gratitude. --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You know those are essays, right? Somebody's opinion. Not policies and guidelines to whack people over the head with. Please consider doing without the faux politeness when you write on this page. All those "please consider" and "Thank you for your consideration" really sound pretty rude, you know. Bishonen | talk20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
Yes, they're essays (tagged as such atop). I prefer to be polite in my communications, which never goes out of style. At any rate, hopefully you'll consider the content at WP:NRVE, which is part of the notability guideline page, as was the intention of my initial post. NorthAmerica100020:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The blank line just below the heading doesn't belong to you, or any other humourless excuse for an editor, so I've put the image back. The page history is clear enough. As for WP:NRVE, you mean the bit that says However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface? Eight years not long enough for you? You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Note the sources that I added to the Haldiram's article, which establish topic notability. The proof is right there, in print, versus assertion by statement alone. Anyway, my post was intended as a friendly notice, nothing else. I'm not a mind reader about whether or not people are aware of various guidelines. On a lighter note, do you always speak for Bishonen, or just sometimes? (some humor, ha ha.) I'm going to go and improve some articles now, cheers. NorthAmerica100021:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's much better. The sources were excellent (if a few years late - but let's not fall out over that), and the answer's 'just sometimes'. Happy editing. --T-RexxS (rawr) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, thanks for the guidance in this context, As you have said, the clause social contract warranted a precise evidential backing, which the article from Telegraph, is expected to help clarify by as much as possible, as such when this institute had been founded (in 1987), the digital world, especially the world wide web did not exist and hence, any kind of retrospective documentary evidence to validate the clause would be almost impossible to locate on the internet. Being an alumnus of this business school, I have heard this clause being repeated in the institutional circle for years, hence, a self reference was potentially the most plausible (and the most easily available) content locally that could be linked, anyway, I hope the entry now fulfils the criteria, keep doing the good work !
Kamal Misra (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic / BS
I am not good at SPI stuff as they all sound the same after a while. The arguments regarding mail issues and infinite protestations to be restored seem similiar. CC only wanted to edit one topic with that alt account. See User talk:Colton Cosmic. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That talkpage is an interesting read. I hadn't realized CC was a live issue so recently. But no, they don't sound the same to me. Not at all. I think… not sure how to put this without pointless offense… I think one of 'em sounds considerably brighter than the other. More straightforward, too. Mind you, I'll willingly concede I for my part stink at SPI stuff. Notorious for not seeing what's in front of my nose. Still, in this case… no, surely not. Let me just ping somebody who's pretty familiar with the habits of both accounts. Bishonen | talk02:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
I'm hardly an SPI genius, but I don't see it myself. Besides the stubbornness (a trait found in many Wikipedians), I don't see that many similarities. WormTT(talk) 07:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've had some low-level feuding with Boeing720, yet another local Scanian patriot. . So far, it's been relevant to Swedish language, Skåneland, South Swedish dialects, Scanian dialects where virtually all additions have been based on personal reflections or obvious skewing along the lines of "Scanian culture is a unique flower being crushed under the jackboots of Great Swedish thugs from Stockholm". I'm seeing activity at Scania as well, and I would appreciate some input from other users.
I wouldn't mind someone covering regional history with a local perspective. But as several users before him, Boeing is merely trying to add an overt pro-Scanian, anti-Swedish touch to articles. And without reliable sources, of course.
Please listen to the man, stalkers. Boeing720 seems to think Scandinavian editors are likely to be prejudiced against Scania (?), so I don't want to waste my breath at the discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard. (I've put in a simple request for diffs.) At least, Boeing asked Diannaa here on the 5th to advise with a "preferably un-bias, un-Scandinavian" administrator about the question of the book "333-årsboken" as a source (is that really the book's name?). It can't be easy to get a non-Scandinavian admin to form an opinion about a book in Swedish, but now that there has been a fairly elaborate discussion between Boeing and Peter (both Swedes) at the RS noticeboard, non-Swedish speakers could reasonably evaluate their arguments. So far it's only the two of them doing the discussing, which isn't very satisfactory. It's the English Wikipedia, after all. Hello stalkers! Bishonen | talk12:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
Good summary, Bish. These debates often get quite heated when suspicion towards fellow countrypersons arise. Being critical about these things can quite easily backfire if you also happen to be a native of Stockholm. To some, you might as well be wearing a monocle, sport a black leather coat and speak with a strong Bavarian accent.
Thanks, LeoFrank, I'll be happy to do that but only if Sitush wants it done, because there's a problem: getting rid of the message will necessitate deleting all the following messages too (because all those revisions will still contain the message). Writ Keeper reverted it, and I've revdel'd the particular post, in order to get rid of the edit summary from the history. How about it, Sitush, do you want me to revdel the message and all that follows it? Bishonen | talk09:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
There have been several similar ones over the last day or two, all of them seemingly from members of India Against Corruption. I can't see anything in the diff provided - no summary, no actual page content. Perhaps the revdel has been more effective than you thought, Bish? Or perhaps my eyesight has gone the same way as my hearing. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. Because WK reverted it promptly, my single revdel got rid of it. I should have figured that out, but the brain isn't working very well this time of day, and it's a new wrinkle for me. All good, then! Bishonen | talk09:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
Yep, all is good thanks. For the record, though, it might be easier just to ignore any future "teri maa" messages. That is what I was doing. I'm more concerned about their recent attempts to frame me for copyright violation etc than about some obscure insults. I'm wondering how much lower they will stoop and I'm spending increasing amounts of time away from my home address: these appear to be a serious bunch of people and they have a terrorist origin. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
So long as the last edit still contains the messages, and you don't revel that, then they won't be deleted although you won't be able to see which editor wrote what. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
But it doesn't contain the message we wanted to get rid of, because WK reverted it quickly, so it's not part of any later revisions. Right..? Or am I confused again? Bishonen | talk19:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
I'm very confused! And I'm very lost among all of these technicalities - sometimes, not even being able to see the admin buttons makes understanding the consequences much more difficult for us mere mortals. Anyway, since the **** has turned up again, what is the procedure for semi-protecting my talk page? I'm not really bothered about the insults but a semi might cause them to get bored. The downside is that it would have a dramatic affect on well-intentioned newbies. Is it worth it? - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Si, I had a look and it seems to be part of a pattern to identify Rajput editors. The Template:User Rajput was created by The Pakistan over the last two weeks and has been deployed to 12 pages - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User Rajput. Most of it has been done by Rajput334, but the last couple by Aatishkibar. I think 'tagging' other users as something when they haven't specifically self-identified is generally frowned on on Wikipedia, so maybe a word to the wise is needed for Rajput334 and Aatishkibar, but I wouldn't make a federal case out of it - it's pretty probably harmless. The reason for the rename request is "to contribute to sensitive issue (blasphemy in pakistan)", which seems fair enough to me. See what 'Shonen thinks. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks pretty strange, especially with the indeffed account. I'll ask a checkuser to take a look. Pity 28bytes isn't one; he changed Ranasherzaman to Aatishkibar.[64] Don't you ever choke on all that good faith, RexxS? Bishonen | talk23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC).
My gut said it is harmless, if misguided, but I need more eyes on it and I've got that now, thanks. I'm not familiar with CHUS, so the requests and then removals really fried my brain. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The accounts are certainly the same individual. The following accounts are technically indistinguishable and editing from the same IP and device at the same time of day:
Given the technical overlap across multiple IPs and devices as well as the behavioural similarities, I can't see how this is more than one editor, with Sherry334 being the master. I'd block the lot and advise them to choose a single account.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
hey, I know, user:The Pakistan and User:Barrister at law, we are from same office, rest of them i don't know, IP adress is same and inevitable, may be the other two used on my system because it doesn't shut down due to UPS connection. actually there is Load shedding Issue in pakistan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Rajput334. Are you saying you people only have one computer between you..? I'm afraid people editing from overlapping multiple IPs, and especially if they do it from the same device, count as one person per wikipedia policy. See WP:COWORKER. Also, you know, even if you are different people, knowing each other and pushing the same point of view would still qualify as collusion, per WP:MEAT. I'm going to follow Ponyo's advice and block at least five out of the six. Let me know which account you prefer to use in the future, please, and I'll perhaps leave that one unblocked; I'll take another look at the contributions first. I've already noticed that you guys have supported each other (or you have supported yourself) in poking Sitush; that's a totally unacceptable use of multiple accounts. Could you please, tell me, btw, if User:Rao Asgar is also you or, well, a friend of yours? Bishonen | talk09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen, IP adress of our device changes frequently, i don't know how. we are using on share network. its an office. i was saying That my system works on Uninterruptible power supply, and there is Load shedding Issue in pakistan, and i have confirmed guys used to use my system when main power supply is off. I'll ask guys not to support my argument any where. since i don't know its against wikipedia policy, i assume they don't know as well but i would let them know. as far as blocking matter, this discretion is yours, you may block according to what you feel good but however i suggest not unless there is disruptive editing by someone. make sure i don't know Rao Asghar. i had placed the template of Rajput at some accounts which i won't in future, as i just came to know u didn't feel good about that. reason why did that was because i knew these people were related to that Rajput community, i came across this, through their conduct at wikipedia. but i would avoid doing this in future. again i recommend, block the ones doing disruptive editing because blocking based on IP and same device would not be sound in context of the above mentiond things. what more i can say is that rest is up to you. Rajput334 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If that's how you see it, I'm going to wait for User:Ponyo to respond to the technical points you raise before I act. Meanwhile, I notice you haven't replied to my question whether you all use the same device ("our device"? seriously?), nor my question about which account you'd prefer to keep editing from, if any. Bishonen | talk12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
I don't understand how you can dispute that you know these other editors. Are we supposed to believe that you, User:Rajput334, have no knowledge of the User:Sherry334, who shares an incredibly similar username, who edited the same articles as you, from the same IP range? And check out the history of Kot Ram Chand. Hello User:The Pakistan, User:Aatishkibar, and User:Rajput334, all on article created by User:Sherry334. Here is the article overlap between Aatishkibar and Rajput 334. Here is Barrister at Law, The Pakistan and Rajput334 all supporting each other in a recent talk page discussion. Picking a day at random, on September 12th both you and The Pakistan have a whim to use the same IP and a computer with the same UA to dabble with templates. At no time do the edits overlap as if you were two users editing contemporaneously. Here is The Pakistan editing Template:User Rajput at 18:16, and here is Rajput334 beginning to add that same template to user pages at 18:55. There is no way to tell where one account ends and the others begin, it's all one big can of worms. And you can add Army.pk (talk·contribs) and The Peaceful Student (talk·contribs) to the list of socks. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen yes same device, i am saying this. User:Ponyo i think this Sherry 334 is my old account some 4 years ago. since i didnt edit wikipedia during these 4 years, and i seriously don't remember its password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but you've always been too lenient... It began with an 'r', I think. No, 's', that was it, yes. I'll get it eventually - damn this senility. Begoontalk17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Aha, I had wondered about The Peaceful Student. Thank you very much, Ponyo. Since Rajput says he has lost the password to Sherry334, which is the oldest account and therefore technically the sockmaster, I'm going to treat Rajput334 — the account that has elected to talk to me here — as the main account. I'll block indefinitely all the others listed above.
Rajput334, are you saying you stopped using the Sherry334 account in 2010, then briefly remembered its password on 20 August this year, just enough to blank the userpages,[65] and now again don't remember it? OK, I guess that's no more unlikely than some of the other things you've said. You've edited from several accounts to attack Sitush on his page in a seeming chorus of unrelated voices, and tag teamed with yourself to game the WP:3RR rule on List of Rajputs. These are examples of either a use of sockpuppets (=one person masquerading as several), which the experienced checkuser Ponyo obviously thinks is the case, or of collusion between people who're closely connected. It doesn't make any difference which it is; it's abusive sockpuppetry in either case. The more I look at the contributions of the accounts listed above (for instance Barrister at Law giving The Pakistan a barnstar as one of his first edits — remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia procedures after just one day of editing, isn't it), the more my assumption that you're editing in good faith wears out. Since you have repeatedly ignored my question as to which account you'd prefer to use, I've assumed it's this one, that you've been answering me from. I'll block the others indefinitely and User:Rajput334 for two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. If it happens again, all the accounts will be blocked indefinitely. I'll put this whole thread on your page as a complement to the block notice. (Minus the comments from my talkpage stalkers, which are welcome here but don't belong on your page.) Bishonen | talk23:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
Klågerup's Bloodbath
Hello Bishonen. I'm sorry for our "bad feeling", I won't be long. I have added "Klågerup's Bloodbath" to Scania-history again (a few sentances only) but after have found a source with secondary interpretation of overwhealming evidences (or sources as we say), also for details. It goes very deep in background etc. Old protocols are provided in the appendix etc. Reason I tell You this that I wouldn't have added the other two sources (from Sydsvenkan and Illustrerad vetenskap) if it wasn't for the Malmö museum source (as of now), The original authors are old or gone, i presume. I do also disapprove of bad sources. (I gave You a task not that long ago, by the way). I don't find Skåne "oppressed" today, but being teached in school "We should be glad of being Swedes rather than Danes" isn't my cup of tea, perhaps simply because I like Danes and Denmark. That has nothing to do with poor sources. All the best, Sinceriously Boeing720 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Gave me a task? Did you really? I'm a volunteer, you know. But I do understand that you sometimes find it hard to choose the best expressions in a foreign language. There's no "bad feeling" on my part, believe it or not. (Where would it come from? I'm from Skåne myself.) My interest is in keeping articles encyclopedic and, as an admin, my particular interest is in making it possible for contributors to spend their time contributing content, rather than arguing (fruitlessly, as far as I have seen) with you and cleaning up.
OK, looking at your latest edits to Scania: please don't argue about Wikipedia's footnote criteria in a footnote! We write articles for ordinary readers, consulting the encyclopedia, to read. Including the footnotes. We don't expose them to arguments about our internal policies. That's what the talkpage is for. And we don't editorialise, such as by calling an event "very sad". I'm sorry, but I really think your sense of what it means to write an encyclopedia needs work. Your addition is also seriously WP:UNDUE in my opinion; I see Johnuniq has reverted it with a link to that policy. (You've been linked to WP:UNDUE several times. Have you clicked on it and read? Keeping additons "due" — relevant, and of reasonable proportions — is one of your big problems, and that was also what I was talking about when I linked you to WP:COAT.)
It frustrates me the way I'm having to explain things that have been explained many times before. Look, Boeing720, I'm really reluctant to block you, especially as I take your note to me here, about the new source, as showing that you're trying in good faith to write in a policy-compliant way, but I'm very concerned. Are you sure you're in the right place? All these complaints must be frustrating. Speaking of complaints, I can't avoid making another one: I'm flabbergasted at the way you answered a sentence I'd written on your page (speaking to Chillum), "And the great length of many of Boeing's talkpage posts must be discouraging too"" with an outsize, humongeous monster of a talkpage comment, five screenfulls on my good big monitor. I couldn't believe it. And further.. you also answered that short sentence of mine with direct commentary which reads like you hadn't understood it. That's why I've linked a couple of the words in it to wiktionary definitions. Are you sure the English Wikipedia is the place for you? I realize you're not allowed to contribute to sv.wiki, but there are many other fish in the internet sea. Bishonen | talk11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC).
Semi-protection II
Bish, I semi-protected your user page for 24 hours because of persistent vandalism in the last few days. Obviously, you can adjust it however you like. Of course, the last IP wanted the page deleted as nonsense, which I considered for a moment. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah but it's such wonderful nonsense :) - and thank you for blocking the IP. Given that it's an IPv6 and is unlikely to be reallocated to another genuine user much before the heat death of the universe, you could always be more expansive with the block duration ;) --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'll just speedy the page, it's not a bad idea. Thanks, Bbb23 and Sitush. What worries me somewhat is that none of these edits have shown up on my watchlist (I do watch my userpage, yes), and still do not. Do you suppose that's yet another interesting Flow thing? I wonder what else I'm not seeing. Besides the little red alert figure not working, that is. How about we all go on strike until they either fix those issues or disable the damn thing? (Incidentally I have unticked Flow notifications in my preferences. Doesn't help.) Bishonen | talk23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC).
I think you only see the most recent action on your watchlist, and if you search that for User:Bishonen you should find an entry with:
It's not relevant to this case, but it is possible to not have a changed page appear on your watchlist for another reason: someone might edit, but then a bot edits (and marks it as a bot edit). If you now look at your watchlist with bot edits hidden you won't see the page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, John, but that's not it. I know only the last edit shows up. Take a look at my userpage history. The last edit there doesn't appear on my watchlist — yes, I know where to look — and the others never did. I've checked my watchlist frequently over the past few days, I would have seen. Does any tps have a notion, about that, and about the little red number crapping out? (I recently put this bookmark on my page to replace the red-number alert function, which suddenly only works like one time in twenty. Cumbersome? Yes.) I'm tired of taking these annoying blips to the pump — don't want to spend my limited wikitime on that crap. I'll just live with them, if nobody has any idea, and hope the damn beta software they've been deploying sitewide gets fixed eventually. If I'm sounding tight-lipped, it's because I am. Bishonen | talk10:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC).
This is next to no help, sorry, but I'll say this - your user page is on my watchlist, which I do check, and I saw none of the vandalism, reverts or protection as they happened. I think I would have, generally, because that kind of thing stands out. So that's odd. However, if I search my watchlist now, the last (protection) entry is there. See - I said it wouldn't really help, but you asked... In general, the software changes are very annoying - breaking the one good thing they've done recently (Echo) by deploying and playing around with the woefully ill-conceived and broken, unfinished Flow is unforgivable. Look through WT:FLOW to feel the love. Or ask Fram... Begoontalk11:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You took care of the problem on your talkpage, I see. If you weren't an arb, I bet you'd have used the same abbreviation as I did, wouldn't you? Arbhood must make life dull. Anyway, I don't know that you can blame Cwobeel for posting on your page. For his first post, I mean. Considering that you said "feel free to come back to me with evidence" in the block rationale. (If Cwobeel or BS should happen to see this: please don't comment in this thread, unless you feel you really must.) Bishonen | talk11:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC).
I certainly don't blame Cwobeel for coming to me, and I have no problems with him doing so again. That said, my comment to him of leave the other alone doesn't seem unreasonable. Arbhood does indeed make life dull. I went to an Editathon over the weekend, much more fun, I really don't know why I do this Arb junk! WormTT(talk) 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NQ and thank you Writkeeper. I see it says "Use with caution", that's a bit dull. [/me hastily restrains Darwinbish from clicking "rollback all" on Writkeeper's contribs page.] Bishonen | talk15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC).
Vávra Suk
Hello Bishonen, I just de-PRODed Vávra Suk using the edit summary "May be marginal notability, but based on significant (Swedish) media attention re. anything having to do with the extreme right. Also, notability is not lost by organisational changes in parties." I can understand some of your notability concerns given that this language version is international, but I don't consider it a clear-cut case, which is has to be for PROD to be used. A contributing factor is that you seemed to argue that notability had been lost due to ND becoming non-existent and his leaving of the editor's post. This is a principle I can't agree with, and which goes directly against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Therefore, I suggest that you bring the article to AfD if you want it to be deleted, and without using arguments that goes against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Best regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. "Swedish media attention re. anything having to do with the extreme right" is hardly the same thing as "Swedish media attention re. Vávra Suk". See also WP:NPOL. But I don't care enough about this dull stub to take it to AfD, where interest would probably also be very low. Thank you for your advice. Bishonen | talk15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC).
I followed the activities of ND when they were still around. They handed out flyers in my neighborhood in Jakobsberg, and I received a pretty lame threat by one of their moronic activists when I told them they I didn't think they were welcome there. I'm pretty sure they were ones responsible for painting a red dot ("COMMIE!") on my door a few weeks later. Not that those klutzes ever tried anything...
Suk appears to have zero notability other than as being as party secretary of ND, which was pretty insignificant in itself. Right now, everyting except his birthdate would probably fit nicely in an expansion of the stubby article on ND itself.
First off....we should probably take down the credible threat of violence that I posted on your talk page which now sits ominously up top. "Wackos" are people too and the tank along with the whole MONGO Army stuff could be seen as a credible threat of violence which no Wacko should have to tolerate. But we really should consider other comments that almost anyone could see as a credible threat.--MONGO16:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your post constitutes a credible threat of violence. Even our current Supreme Court has stopped short of interpreting the 2nd Amendment to allow private ownership of main battle tanks, so you're OK (for now). MastCellTalk16:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But...I'm driving the tank! Most persons and especially Wackos know that Tank+MONGO=DEATH!!! But this isn't just about that...what about credible threats like when someone says "Nuke this" in an Afd discussion? Remember.....it's all in the mind of the beholder! Nobody wants to be near an Afd discussion where anyone is talking about the nuclear option!--MONGO17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
What I find incredible is that an admin should use the advice of an essay to indefinitely block a long-time contributor (7 years and 130,000 edits). Only 1 person in 75 in the UK has access to a firearm, and three-quarters of those are farmers using shotguns to keep down vermin. For any folks gullible enough to think such "threats" are in any way credible, I own a nice bridge in London that I'm looking to sell at a really cheap price ... --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
But London Bridge is now in Lake Havasu, Arizona where anyone can own a gun and carry it. So far, the bridge hasn't fallen over or sunk into the swamp. And it is very close to where Patton practiced desert tank training for the North Africa campaign. Very dangerous place. Mostly known for drunken deaths of college students on spring break and boats. --DHeyward (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
"Low quality" reverts
I expanded the lead of Party of the Swedes, but for some reason I'm being repeatedly reverted[66][67][68] by IP users with only "it was better before"-motivations. I'm guessing it's the same person. Anyone feel like commenting?
Ha, that's pretty funny. The IP-hopper probably has some experience of being told to leave explanatory edit summaries, since they have provided gems like "your edit was low quality, it was not a improvment" and "the article was better the way it was before your edit". I haven't come across that particular kind of "explanation" before. Anyway, if they would like to continue, they'll have to create an account, I've semi'd. Bishonen | talk19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC).
And thank you for your efforts, WayKurat. No, when I looked at this, I realized they won't end! I don't think the person will remain confined to those ranges, though — it's only too easy to jump to a different proxy. I was just about to semi a bunch of those talkpages — I'll get back to that. At least it'll annoy him a little... Bishonen | talk15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC).
Already blocked by HJMitchell. Maybe the semiprotection (done now) will have more effect than the blocks. On the other hand, if it turns out there are a lot more of those IP talkpages that I haven't yet found, you might look at it like this, WayKurat: it doesn't matter that much what those talkpages look like. Who's ever going to look at them, other than the person himself? It's hardly worth the trouble, for either you or me, to do any more than we already have to keep them clean. Let him play. Reverting him on articles remains important, of course. Bishonen | talk16:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC).
Another one here: 103.6.219.2. He now targets the Manila Bulletin article, an article I restored prior to the talk page attacks and he cursed on his edit summary. Well, the kid seems have mental problems based on the FB page he "accidentally" posted on his original account's talk page. -WayKurat (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, of course, Angry Birds is his overriding interest. No bother, you're very welcome to notify me (even though I'm not necessarily around all the time). Semi two months. Bishonen | talk17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC).
Greetings, I have had a look at the FAC and PR of the above and see that you were instrumental in both. A user decided that it would be helpful to come along and vandalise the article by plastering tags all over it requesting more refs etc. I have deleted them, removed the unsourced information and have started to copy edit it; Looking at it, it appears that this has been neglected for a long time and I'm worried that it may no longer satisfy FA. I'm going to try and tidy it up as much as I can, but I have no sources. Is this something you can possibly watchlist in case someone adds something dubious which I miss? Cassiantotalk19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Blast from the past! :-) But I had little enough to do with the article; it's Bunchofgrapes's baby. I see I got very chatty on the peer review; Bunchofgrapes was a good friend (much missed :-(), and also I had written several articles about Restoration drama, and was full of the energy of it, and choc full of 17th-century cruft. I'm sorry to say it all seems a bit distant now. But thank you very much for keeping an eye out, Cassianto, and for your good edits. I've watchlisted the article. Bishonen | talk20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC).
Not a problem at all! It was the home and principal employer to two of my babies Dan Leno and Joseph Grimaldi which is why I don't want it deteriorating any further. I really want to try and keep it out of FAR and will be revamping it with Sagaciousphil over the next month or so. After that, I think a cheeky little peer review maybe in order just to make sure we have covered everything. Feel free to dip in where you can, your help (if any) will be much valued! Cassiantotalk20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't this handsome bridge that I happen to own look good on your lawn, RexxS?Got one on my lawn already, but willing to part with it - no reasonable offer refused.
I've pedantically polished the References section so that any other pedants won't complain. The Notes is a bit of a mixed bag (and personally I'd have used {{sfn}} to auto-link the short notes to the full references, but I'm not up for changing citations wholesale). Nevertheless, I think it will pass muster except that I'm puzzled about where the current ref no 45, "Morning Chronicle, 7 July 1815" could be found. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It is appreciated, RexxS, thank you. Incidentally did you notice this above from CU User:Ponyo? Maybe you should create yet another alternative account yourself, such as User:Famously Assumes Good Faith? I've got a lovely scenic bridge to sell if you're interested. Seven socks! (I'd taunt Sitush as well, but I'm afraid he may not be reading Wikipedia very avidly at the moment. :-( ) Bishonen | talk01:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
Hello RexxS great to see you on board! Yes, the refs are a bit of a mixed bag, but I prey complete ignorance around the sfn format I'm afraid. If someone could undertake this I would support it however. Would the "Morning Chronicle ref not be found within the British newspaper archive? I have access, so I can take a look. Cassiantotalk04:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Cass, I'm sure it will be in the BNA. My problem was I didn't recognise the title as a British newspaper, so I suppose I won't be the only one. Anyway, I've wikilinked Morning Chronicle to our article on the newspaper in case other readers are curious as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I suppose so, but why? I'm pretty sure you can move it yourself over an unedited redirect. It's only if the target page has been edited that you need an admin. Want Darwinbish to move it for you? (Cool fish! I didn't know you were into that.) Bishonen | talk12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC).
I tried but just got an error message that said I couldn't. I'm not really into tiny little catfish species like Glyptothorax, I just noted a request for help with translating articles from sv-WP a while ago, and did a few then. But then decided to do the rest (~90 stub articles...) too, a few at a time. So I've done a bit over a dozen now. Thomas.W talk12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for not blocking me.Things have calmed down. And I really should have listened better to Your first comment. This is my second barnstar ever given. Boeing720 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, in retrospect, I realize that I shouldn't taken so much offece as I did when You wrote "a friendly administrator advice" or something like that. If You had been of any other nationality than Swedish, I doubt I would have responded like I did. (Due to my bad experiences at SwWiki) It was indeed very stupid of me, and I'm very sorry. Also for one reply to John. Also, if I at that time hadn't already been upset by Peter (whom I admire from many perspectives, but not always agree with), I would neither have responded like I did. Regarding SwWiki, Peter seems to have had if not similar, so yet bad experiences there aswell (and typically with the same person aswell, Wapne/Yger.) I made some beginner's mistake in 2009 - yes. But I did resign after Wapne's harassments. Around half a year later, in 2010 Wapne was gone ! Then I began again. But only to experience that Wapne now was Yger instead! And when he blocked me (solely due to describing S-Bahn in Berlin not as "Pendeltåg" but "Stadsbana"), I found this to be very unfair, (and abuse of administrational rights). By that time I had began to understand what Wikipeadia really was about. (Not like "Susning.nu") I even humbly asked to forget the past - and many stated "yes of cource", but Wapne/Yger and his mates turned me down. And since Wapne could change to Yger, so could I change alias, I thought then. But here it would never happen, not like SwWiki was ruled some years ago. Never ! In my oppinion their problem was that I didn't always use Stockholm as basic perspective. I can especially recall that I had mentioned that Copenhagen is equaly importaint as Stockholm, also for many Swedes. (And examplified by the use of Kastrup as airport). The current Swedish "verdict" of me in my oppinion is untrue, exaggerated and extremely spiced and twisted. Some beginning mistakes are all what's true. I'm most certainly not stubborn, or debate things endlessly.
I'm indeed very sorry to have answered You the way I did. Thanks again for not blocking me, I hope we can put this behind us (atleast as time goes by), You must of cource still alert me if I should make mistakes. But I will never ever again answer any advises You may give me in the future like I did. I'm honnestly very sorry. And don't base Your thoughts of me, on the Swedish verdict, please. Boeing720 (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sad. He's ruining his chances of a standard offer. Just whack-a-mole time, I suppose. I did block one range on his account because of him, but this one won't work so well. Bishonen | talk20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
Boy, I didn't think I'd be issuing one of these in a hurry, but in your case I'll happily oblige. Thank you for being one of the most trustworthy and fair admins around; owing to my own experiences of late, you appear to be one of a dying breed. All the best! Cassiantotalk19:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Bishonen. What's this about antisemitism slurs? "imputations of antisemitism" sounds a little vague — do you mean I used the actual words "You are an antisemite", and referred to Nishidani? If I'd seen anything like that, I would certainly have recused myself with a self-imposed block. I still will, regardless if it was recent or not. Could you please give a diff and save me having to trawl through all my posts? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're perfectly well aware of what I mean, but very well. You said on ANI that you'd been "called a crying-Jew by a repeated offender"[70], and later on your page that you'd been "caricaturized as a crying Jew".[71] When I saw those posts of yours, I was horrified that the "repeated offender" hadn't been blocked for such egregious abuse, and posted to ask you who it was and where it had happened.[72] In response, you offered 12 - 13 links, none of them with any tendency to support your accusation, which had apparently been a mere (twice-repeated) troll.[73] A couple of your links were to antisemitic cartoons on the internet (not, I presume, cartoons created by Nishidani, or have I got that wrong?), one was to a 2009 editing restriction of Nishidani, which was lifted in 2011 (you have mentioned this editing restriction several times on ANI as well — you apparently think it's of great and enduring interest in the year 2014), and nine of your links were diffs to posts by Nishidani, none of which posts were antisemitic. Certainly none of them called you a "crying jew" or anything in that ballpark.
To summarize; you made an accusation against somebody you didn't name, and when I asked who it was, you linked, in response, to nine posts by Nishidani and one post about Nishidani. Are you under the impression that baseless accusations of antisemitism or of anything else are all right as long as you don't mention the person's name in your text on the page, but merely link to it, again and again and again, so as to identify them? That impression would be a mistake. Attacking-by-linking is no better than any other kind of attack, it's merely more underhand and passive-aggressive. That's why I wrote in my warning on your page (which was apparently quite mysterious to you) that "the next time you call him [=Nishidani] an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation… I will block you from editing". Please heed that warning. Don't attack Nishidani on any Wikipedia page, or via links, or for that matter in any other clever indirect way either. All right? I hope you can understand that I'm not happy about having my good-faith eagerness to protect you from ethnic slurs (an essential duty for an admin, IMO) used as a fulcrum for (as Johnuniq put it), ducking and weaving, and for an apparently never-ending waste of my time. What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to? Bishonen | talk17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I hate to interrupt, but I think MarciulionisHOF may have misjudged something here. Bishonen was trying to help you, when she suggested that ANI thread be closed, because she's nice like that. Had it remained open, the other users may have (and still, I guess might) pursue[d] their very valid grievances regarding your personal attacks. If you want my advice (or even if you don't, I suppose), that was the point at which your best interests would have been served by dropping the whole thing, learning from the experience, and walking away. You still have that option, I think, though you've obviously endangered it. I recommend trying it. Anyway, as I should have said, just passing through. Begoontalk18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bishonen and Begoon. I certainly assume good faith and apologize for not making a clear enough explanation. Brevity proved a disaster in this case. There was only one instance where Nishidani made a "sly imputation" towards me. He has now explained that someone suggesting that 'Palestinians support attacks on Israeli civilians' is the same as calling them antisemitic. He thought this was my "clear endeavoring", but his understanding is a misguided foreigner's perception. Palestinian motives are non-uniform and have an array of reasons -- some of them Nishidani mentioned (same diff) after attacking my intentions... but I was wholly aware of all the points raised and responded only in regards to the commentary about my alleged motives. Nishidani responded that there's proof for my intentions because of his lack of understanding and jumping to conclusions. Mostly (array of reasons), the concept of 'resistance' (Arabic: Muqawama) does not derive from antisemitism but from political Islam, and it has many uses. In the Israeli-Arab Conflict context the term is most prominent and has the meaning of turning back the wheel (Palestinian narrative on shrinking Palestine[74]) and returning Palestine back to the rightful owners. This entails wiping Israel off the map, but as a very high-ranking Palestinian official (Abbas Zaki) said on al-Jazeera it is unacceptable by the international community to say that outright and it should be kept private. Anyway, different groups have different views on what to do with the Jews once this is accomplished. 'Muqawama' in militant cases does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. This is most clear with the atrocities in Syria and more recently by ISIS, and less clear in the case where the vast majority of attacks on Israel targets civilians, but the Iron Dome and other extreme security measures, e.g. the separation barrier, the checkpoints, reduce these casualties. To say this, is not an intentional smear campaign but realistic and source based. Thus, Nishidani's misunderstanding of the complexity of the issue turned into a comment directed at my "clear endeavoring" and not at the content. That I had used the term 'repeated offender', I now fully understand how my "repeated offender" comment was misunderstood -- and this is a grave error on my own part for not making a clear separation and explanation. It was not directed to the single offense -- which I still take exception to. I apologize for allowing the 'repeated offender' misunderstanding to occur, it was never my intention -- certainly not a sly imputation as you read it to be. My only reason for using "repeated offender", was due to seeing how in the last month, Nishidani made comments which served more for pissing others off than to promote collaboration ("Newspeak"(26 Sep) and "1,000,000 instances of shock in Gaza"(28 Sep)) come to mind. Referring to his less recent history was meant to show he should know better by now; after being released on good faith from a 2 year long "indefinite" topic ban in 2011 and was then blocked again with an expiry time of 1 day (Personal attacks or harassment) in January 2013. Again, I apologize that I have not clarified enough that nowhere in these diffs there was another instance of attacks on how my clear intentions must be to portray the widespread Palestinian support of the attacks on Israeli civilians as antisemitic (He ignored the part where I mentioned widespread support in Israel for wiping Hamas off the map). That said, I have been in about as much error as Nishidani was with his action (singular). I have, on one occasion, typed 'called' instead of 'caricaturized as' -- but it was an honest error which I made sure to clarify. 'Caricaturized as' doesn't mean I'm calling him or suggesting he is an antisemite. That connection is incorrect as someone saying I have intentions of smearing Palestinians does not automatically make them into an antisemite. An antisemite shows a clear pattern for abusive conduct towards Jews on a racially motivated agenda. Nishidani has repeatedly expressed disregard to Israel, not to Jews. There is a difference there as well. If I say that, it doesn't mean I am implying that he is antisemitic. With all the discussions and my horrible 'repeated offender' miscommunication, Bishonen jumped to the conclusion that this must have all been an intentional portrayal against Nishidani's character, rather than a reasonable objection to someone making bad faith assumptions on my intentions. For what it's worth, I have already corrected that mistake. I'm left to hope Bishonen and Nishidani will follow suit after this clarification and apology and correct their own misunderstandings into previous notes.
I hope nothing is garbled or left open for misinterpretation. Being new here, I had no idea so much drama can come from basic miscommunication. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, no disaster of brevity there, and I'm not sure where you think there was one. Your response is unclear; I can't seem to extract anything responsive from it. I get lost in it, and I don't understand the relevance of this further elaboration of Nishidani's purported offenses. You explain about Nishidani making a "sly imputation" towards you in a way that's vaguely familiar to me — I'm sure it refers to one of your twelve original diffs — but why are you making me dig through them one more time? And then, to compound the obscurity, you go on to another point, referring to "the same diff" — but there was no diff — are you trying to make me crazy? (The only link in your entire post is to davidduke.com — what's that for, guilt by association?) Anyway, in brief, I don't understand what most of your post is for, unless for once again having a go at Nishidani. And with all that, you don't even answer my straightforward question, "What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to?". Perhaps your answer is implied in the totality of your two posts, but that's not the kind of answer I was looking for. If you want to post here again (you would be extremely welcome to just drop it), please take a shot at answering the question in one sentence, and altogether at writing briefly and to the point.
I don't think I did misunderstand the word "repeated offender", since you illustrated Nishidani's repeated offenses with some ten diffs, going back as far as 2009, and I'm surprised to learn it was possible to misunderstand my use of the term "sly imputation". It referred simply to your combination of a) accusing somebody unnamed of calling you a "crying Jew", and b) when asked who said that, linking copiously to Nishidani, still without naming him in your text. That in my estimation is sly. As for you typing called "instead of" caricaturized as in error (do you mean, like a typo?), can we at least lay that to rest? The issue isn't worth any more keystrokes, because I don't see the vast difference. Saying that someone caricaturized (in the same sense as normal verb "caricatured", I presume) you as a crying jew is a personal attack just the same as saying they called you that. In either case you — you! not Nishidani! — are calling up an antisemitic stereotype, and then you ascribe it to Nishidani. That's unconscionable. Don't do it again, that's all. Incidentally, you should be more careful of playing the "I'm an insider, you're an outsider" card, as in calling Nishidani's arguments "a misguided foreigner's perception". Speak to the arguments, not the individual, least of all to their ethnicity or nationality. And now I really do have to pay a little attention to my daytime work. Bishonen | talk12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC).
P. S. Even though you "CC'd" Nishidani, he hasn't weighed in here so far. I appreciate the forbearance, Nishidani, you're extremely welcome to keep it up. Bishonen | talk12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC).
I don't keep much up at my age, save my chin. I'm writing in small also because my wife is in the study and if she catches this, might contradict me. I dislike contradictions.;)Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bishonen:, my explanation above is so that you will understand why Nishidani made a content-misjudgement based error (thinking that saying Palestinian support for attack on Israeli civilians is an allegation of antisemitism -- it is not) leading him to saying my intentions were to portray Palestinians as antisemitic. This happened only once (per "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic"[75]). My mistake was taking too much personal offense at this. My mistake was due to the fact that it is a derogatory theme in pro-Palestinian caricatures. I never said this particular crying-Jew caricature was antisemitic, but I failed to clarify this well enough. Having this occur, now, a second time in the one month I've been contributing here (per: Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers"10:53, 1 October 2014 - Fram) suggest I might be required to learn to embrace these misguided allegations and automatic bad faith -- my so called intention to make the Palestinians appear motivated only/mainly by antisemitism -- as acceptable conduct (why would Palestinians only have racial motives when there's a war going on for a century?). I hope with this further statement, my explanation above for what Nishidani misunderstood and took on the offensive to counter becomes clearer. I have learned that when presenting these instances of misconduct I must stress that I am not calling anyone antisemitic for doing so. It is a bigoted type cast in pro-Palestinian caricatures -- but doesn't mean it is antisemitic. Your bad faith is misplaced, as well as defense earlier in favor of someone having the incivility to ask if I was summoned to English Wikipedia by the Hebrew WIkipedia. I think it would show good faith if you follow my own correction and amend that statement. It would be nice if you also consider my explanation here and revoke your statement that I was calling Nishidani antisemitic. Not every pro-Palestinian cartoon, even ones portraying Jews in bad light, is antisemitic. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bishonen: One of the people involved expressed displeasure, that my attempt wasn't clear enough and in his eyes could still appears to paint one side as evil. I have made an improvement suggestion, I'd like your input on it. Any further suggestions would be appreciated as well. Thanks.
MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(no need to ping me on my own page.) I'd rather not get further drawn into this, or post on your page again. My warning stands, nothing you have said since has convinced me that it's not proper and urgent. I'll just say one thing about your latest suggestion: you wrote on your userpage that "These allegations show nearsightedness and bad faith". Fram in a response telescoped it into nearsighted bad faith, which of course comes to the same thing, and said it was a personal attack. It is. Accusations of bad faith are taken seriously here, indeed "good faith/bad faith" are important concepts in Wikipedia's internal discourse. (You accused me of bad faith above, which I ignored, because you clearly weren't well aware of what it means.) I've linked you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith before, but did you click on it?
Anyway. I see you reply to Fram's objection saying "[We're talking about] "situations where others jump to bad faith conclusions because they don't know the breadth of the material. That's not to say they have bad intentions. Most likely, not." You really don't know what bad faith means. People "jump to bad-faith conclusions" because they have bad intentions. Not because they don't know enough. That would be jumping to good-faith (but perhaps mistaken or misguided) conclusions. Bad faith is a serious accusation. You should stop using the term until you have figured out what it means. Click, man! (Btw you still don't answer the question I've asked twice. It's like getting blood out of a stone.) Bishonen | talk09:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC).
I'll have to contemplate your notes about what bad-faith means on wikipedia and try to improve future use. In the meantime, I will try to avoid using this term.
As to your question, I guess I've missed it with all the words. I skimmed through your last comment. If I understand, you are asking what am I hoping to achieve with further posts. I hope to have a quick way of dissolving situations where editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions, followed by allegations towards me (i.e. allegations that I am doing something with intent outside the scope of the project). These allegations are misguided and a violation of WP:ARBPIA#Decorum. Editors should stick to content, not perceived intentions. This is the goal. I hope this is the question you meant to get a reply for.
As a side, but very important note, I hope to get you to refactor your presumptuous accusation. I had explained my offense at Nishidani's allegation with a cartoon. You presumed a caricature of a "crying Jew" is antisemitic despite the context not being racially motivated (it is still an offensive caricature). Thus, you accused me on my page of calling him an antisemite. This certainly leaves an unjustified impression. What further can I do to allow for you to reconsider and retract that statement? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You also "randomly" choose to illustrate a quote made by Nishidani with a picture of "A poster found inside the home of a wanted terrorist in Rafah." (file description)[76]. You later changed that section full of Nishidani quotes to a "The Classic Wiki-characters. Refers to no one in particular. Only archetypes." section, keeping the above quote and picture together. The more I look into this, the more I regret that I have started a discussion with you and not simply blocked you as a disruptive editor. You should really stop the "bad faith" allegations (which you used above only two lines after saying that you would avoid it), as the person displaying the most bad faith in all these recent discussions appears to be you. Fram (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: I was under the impression that you are involved in the ARBPIA topic area with your contribution on WP:RSN. Allow us to continue this discussion about userpage usage and my misguided breach of WP:POLEMIC on your talkpage (it distracts from the other topic and is irrelevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict), hello, Fram. Marciulionis, no, that wasn't the question, and I'm damned if I'll ask it a third time. You've worn me down on that point, congratulations. You've got a nerve to talk about losing my points "with all the words". Yes, I'm exceptionally long-winded, aren't I?
"Bad faith" doesn't have a special, arcane meaning "on Wikipedia", it means exactly what it means elsewhere; I was merely making the point that it's an important, even central, concept in Wikipedia discourse.
What you ask of me isn't going to happen, so you might as well stop bugging me about it. You might take a look at this page, especially the "Pestering" section: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. … If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy.". I would love to help but I'm rather busy. I sympathize with Fram's temptation to block you as a disruptive editor; I feel it too. Bishonen | talk12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC).
Marciulionis, 12:02: "I'll have to contemplate your notes about what bad-faith means on wikipedia and try to improve future use. In the meantime, I will try to avoid using this term." [77]
Marciulionis, 12:02, further in the same post: "I hope to have a quick way of dissolving situations where editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions,[...]"
Marciulionis, 12:30, "editors with less than perfect knowledge on the topic matter (myself included) make bad-faith assumptions[...]"[78]
Trying to avoid using a term is hard to match with using it again in the same post, and in the very next post you make. Don't make promises you don't intend to keep anyway. Fram (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fram: Was there a problem with my use? (I never said 'never use it', I said 'try' meaning not to overuse it in error). Anyway, can you help me out? What was the question asked two times that I've missed? I'm only human and can make errors while reading as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen Was it "What does you header here, "Mislabeling issues", refer to?" -- I believe you mislabeled the cartoon (the cartoon's crying-Jew type-cast, though offensive, is not antisemitic), and subsequently mislabeled me. Best, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) fix MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
After 10 years (see below) you have here an example of the difference between a dramatist and a playwright. MarciulionisHOF is not a playwright, but he's making much ado about nothing. JehochmanTalk13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm rather depressed in that this week I found that the article on Chi-chi Nwanoku was deleted as a "none notable" person as no one could be bothered to dispute a PROD but would defend adding that link. Fortunately someone has seen fit to create a stub. WCMemail22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, Wee Curry Monster. In a way I'm sorry the thread was closed so soon, it deserved more drama, IMO. ;-) But the practical problem had been fixed, so I guess I can't complain. (Not everybody loves drama the way I do.) About Chi-chi Nwanoku; yeah, I see it's a stub. Do you have a copy of the deleted article? If not, I can e-mail it to you if you'd like to add some of the material to the current page. Bishonen | talk14:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC).
The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Funny that, I had actually noticed it, and started to type up my response, before I saw your post here. RexxS's post turned up on my watchlist and I went look, to have a mention of my name (without a ping) hit my eye — it took me a while to work out what it was about. It's not a misquote, I guess, as much as a misuse of a cherrypicked quote. I'm torn between indignation and admiration at the nerve of it. Bishonen | talk22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC).
Well, ⌘ -F, cause I'm using a Mac. I before I asked and again after, still not seeing it??? (Case-insenstive search for "bish"). NE Ent23:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey there, thank you Francis, looks delicious! I did remember we had a nice chat, but the subject of it had gone down the memory hole, thanks for the link. I'm a little touched by the earnest way we assumed, at that time, that categories on Wikipedia could be made logical, and even that on the whole they already were, if only you and I straightened out a little kink in our own little corner… haha. I would not assume that today. Indeed I rarely meddle in the great Category Swamp, where you can so easily be sucked under and drown. P.S. I'll put it in Bishzilla's fridge, and please help yourself to a celebratory cake from her little selection! Bishonen | talk08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC).
Keep up the good work, and have some fun doing it. That's the meaning of this little celebration to me. All Wikipedia's swamps combined are still no larger than pocket-size. Sometimes takes the wit to make the swamp disappear in the pocket instead of the (wo)man in the swamp. But who am I kidding, where did I learn all that...? ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's hope not. But they seem quite impulsive — check out their last talkpage history items. And "vandals" — maybe I ought to warn them about personal attacks. Well, it's a new user. Bishonen | talk23:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC).
Pruned and nursed back to some semblance of funny: [82]
As a fellow essay writer, I hope you can commiserate with me and make me feel better. This essay has become, after almost 3 years, and a multitude of "improvements", a steaming pile of crap. So I pruned the hell out of it, but expect to get a {{uw-own4im}} template on my talk page at any moment. I can only begin to imagine how someone who wrote 95% of an FA or GA - something that actually matters - must feel. I'd probably use bad words occasionally too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm ashamed to say I never knew LIGHTBULB was your creation, Floq, even though several of my socks have edited it. (You want them to help you edit war to keep it clean? Say the word.) I think it was sort of doomed after the idiot addition of the "humour" template.[83] (oh dear, suppose somebody takes it seriously?). What's the moral? Well, as I realized when Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" (yeah, it's a redlink, I AfD'd it), started to be edited largely, it is that you should never put your essays into Wikipedia space. Keep 'em safe in your userspace, like MastCell's Cynic's guide to Wikipedia or my own Optimist's guide. Crowdsourcing is all very delightful for articles — well, for some articles — but not so much for essays or even "essays". They're liable to get levelled right down. Well, unless someone defends 'em aggressively (oh! oh! WP:OWN! and boring too!). Bishonen | talk22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC).
P.S. Not sure what I can say to make you feel better. When Sitush asked for somebody to make him feel better I called him a cunt, but he left anyway.[84][85] :-( Bishonen | talk22:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC).
Actually, I thought WP:WQA worked pretty well, just not in an obvious way the folks might (foolishly) expect it to. It worked when a couple ~50 edit editors could sling snark at each other for a few days, eventually figure out that no one was going to save them from themselves, and figure out how to get along -- without the discussion clogging up article talk or ANI or Jimbo's page or all the usual places such discussions talk place nowadays. NE Ent23:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
If you feel the need for further proof, this was a userspace essay that Malleus, Keeper76 and myself (with help from numerous others) knocked up back Before The Dawn Of Time. This was what happened to it once it was moved from userspace to WP:space. (This long-forgotten sub-page of it ought to form part of Wikipedia's user manual, IMO.) – iridescent09:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I knew the first from Eric's talk, recently mentioned, but not the decoder, made my day ;) - I voted a support today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)The correct answer to the question "How many Wikipedians would it take to screw in a lightbulb" is two, but they would have to be very small in order to fit inside a lightbulb. Thomas.W talk11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Great page, Iridescent. There ought to be a link to it on the RFA page. Hello, KillerChihuahua, such long time! Great to see you here again! And Thomas.W, you win this bout. Or maybe all this sex talk scares us tender females away — I haven't decided. There's a response on your page. Bishonen | talk23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC).
I did, Doug, and I do appreciate your concern for me, but I still can't make myself be scared. Maybe that simply shows I'm naive. Bishonen | talk10:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC).
I was researching Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru and, specifically, the events in Abergele in 1969. Our (dreadful) articles have it wrong: the guys were intending to plant a bomb on the rail tracks and to explode it as the royal train passed over. They'd been in Y Castell pub (seemingly, from my visit, still a stronghold of Welsh-speakers of the somewhat extreme variety) and were themselves misty optically. That's why the bomb exploded prematurely, as they were carrying it in a bag towards the tracks. Some people still call them the Abergele Martyrs, although not many, and a handful conduct an annual commemorative march through the town.
I'm off to hospital now and then will be slinking away once again. Still nothing from @Philippe (WMF): but I'll likely be without internet access for a while now anyway, unless I call on one of my siblings. - 2.123.202.135 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you raised that, Tito, and I hope the WMF feels its responsibility. Sitush's problems are legal matters, obviously. I don't really have anything to add on the AN, but I hope Philippe does. Bishonen | talk21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC).
They do a good job with lip service...I really hope the WMF makes me eat my words but they're rarely interested in assisting our UNPAID editors deal with sociopathic entitites.--MONGO13:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You left me a message…
On my talk page you left a message about me sending you a message rather than someone else. You were perfectly correct. I did make that mistake,(can you see my embarrassed face?) I think I will be more careful with clicking my mouse from now on. Sometimes I just need to slow down. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Oh look! After all these years, he still thinks about you. That really is very touching and sweet - he's an old softie inside. Giano(talk)16:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That second bullet point is why this project will eventually fail, unless Wales is removed from any role in the governance of it, both behind the scenes (WMF-related, as he's shown that he's willing to manipulate WMF to do his bidding on-Wiki) and front of the project. He cares more for the MMORPG side of the project (which is destroying it) than he does for the actual content, which is its lifeblood. He needs to be deposed as "god-king." LHMask me a question17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I come from a very poor family and had to make do with playing with, erm, myself. Not really. I used to turn wooden cotton reels into "tanks" with a matchstick, rubber band and a slice of an old candle. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I built plastic models of tanks and aircraft and the like (Airfix and similar), and then shot them to pieces with an air gun in the back garden. Those were the days. Thomas.W talk20:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I dislike the annoying user with little or no content. We tolerate them more than the high-content but annoying editors. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hope all is well with the Bishpack. The Texpack is doing great. Currently going through the joys of potty training. Ugh! Tex (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it that time already? My naughty little posse is fine too. Can you believe I haven't been RFC'd since 2009? I know I'm doing something wrong, but what? I must have gotten mellow without noticing. Bishonen | talk20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC).
Another matter unconnected with cupcakes
Please restore my talkpage access. It was just removed by one of your shrill chickenshits who falsely determined I have no right to express opinions he doesnt like. It is hard for me to see how some people could be so insecure and miserable that they must try to control others personal expressions, if he cannot live in this world with the fact that people will have opinions regardless he should just take the easy way out. Til Eulenspiegel 71.127.138.13 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That's an extremely rude way of putting it, which makes it harder for me to oblige you. I have contacted the admin in question. But you may remember Drmies removed your tpa in September, and I spent some of my credibility reversing his action. It wasn't with any enthusiasm, as you can see from my edit summary here. You'd better try to be less confrontational on your page, or it'll happen a third time, and then you'll be on your own. Incidentally, please don't evade your block any more. The tpa issue isn't connected with that, but it wouldn't kill you to play nice in that respect. Appearances to the contrary, I don't particularly enjoy doing range blocks. They're blunt instruments. And I don't think I have to tell you that every time you do it, your chance of ever being unblocked decreases. Bishonen | talk20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC).
I can still read this whole page, referring to the comments on it, not to add to your suspicions... Thanx for letting me post to my talk page 71.127.138.13 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. Could you fix the fully protected Sarbajit Roy redirect? The sub-section to which it is currently redirected, India Against Corruption#Divergence, needs to be changed to India Against Corruption#Internal split. And um, you and any admin (checkuser?) talk page stalkers might want to keep an eye on Talk:India Against Corruption and its new participant. So far, they are behaving better than their previous colleagues, but I've had to warn them twice now about their potentially disruptive off-topic comments (here and here). Hopefully, they'll get the hint. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks. I was completely thrown off and wondered, "Why did I get blocked for?? I didn't get any warnings about any article. Because of the Endemol page". Making a fool of myself, I sent a message to EdJohnston's page asking what did I do. Thanks once again. King Shadeed 09:11, October 19, 2014 (UTC)
Haha, yes. It was quite deceptive, I was fooled at first, too, and had to check the History. I never noticed the datestamp with Ed's sig. Bishonen | talk13:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
And much more rewarding when they copy/paste their own block notice. I see they are now at a 3 month block. :) Don't know if talk page access is removable or advised with IP as they deleted the block notice. --DHeyward (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Nah. It's sometimes believed that removing current block notices is not allowed, but it is, see WP:REMOVED: it's only declined unblock request that must be left. I can see the logic: no need to force a blocked user to keep a badge of shame up on their page if they're anyways not going to request unblock. Compare also [87]. I suppose I might remove tpa for egregious illogic (=leaving Ed's expired block notice, removing my current one), but that would take some serious IAR. Bishonen | talk17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC).
Yeah, somebody already reverted the block notice. I'm not that much of a busybody usually. My only thought was that it makes it easiery to cut and paste it in three months. Are you taking bets your 3 month block notice will be copy/pasted to someone elses talk page as their first return edit? --DHeyward (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishes all. Some time ago I read an essay about what 'with all due respect' means, and memory says it might have been (one of) you that wrote it. However memory isn't helping me find it. Any ideas? Or did I dream the whole thing? pablo11:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you saw Floq's plaint about WP:LIGHTBULB? Yeah, the WADR thing has been deleted. We nominated it Ourselves, which I guess was the reason for most of the "deletes": people thought the creator ought to be able to get rid of it. IMO it had outlived what amusingness it might ever have had, and also it had seen some crappy editing that made it self-contradictory. The shortcut that was created for it, WP:WADR, now redirects to a suitable entry in Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, which will really do just as well — check it out. The experience has taught Us not to put Our sillinesses in Wikipedia space, but keep them in userspace, and I recommend Floq and everybody else to do the same. Just imagine what good-faith editing could do to MastCell's Cynic's Guide or Darwinbish's NPA template if they ventured out into Wikipedia space. Bishonen | talk11:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC).
Bring your friends and watch Jimbo's speech with me! I think I've ordered enough popcorn!
Yeah I did see that - not sure of the point of turning it into an essay really, seeing as the wikisource version is linkable and contains applause ... In fact think it would be better with more description of what else is going on, (clears throat, adjusts lectern, curses softly at laptop which is still displaying slide 14 etc) so that those of us who couldn't make it can better visualise the whole experience. pablo12:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The new one is supposed to be here, but I haven't had a chance to look it over yet. It used to be here, but it looks like you have to sign in to something now in order to see it; this is probably the 7-hour version that you can't rewind easily if you want to hear some part of it again. —Neotarf (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I can hear Jimbo speaking about civility for 7 hours?? It's a dream come true! Let's all watch it together, I'll get the popcorn! Bishonen | talk18:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC).
Very well, I've replied on your page, Elvey. I've really said my say, you know. You'll have to discuss content with the article's editors, because I'm wearing my admin hat with you and w r t the article in question. My warning stands; I'll sanction you if you continue making the editing experience unpleasant for others. Bishonen | talk18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC).
Neutrality on Wikipedia
Apologies if my previous post appeared as trolling. That was not my intention. You were quick to block me when I was insensitive to Palestinian militants, I thought it would only be fair to give you a chance to consider the following. (a) A comparison between a barely documented event with both sides disputing the circumstances -- and the extensively researched and documented holocaust. (b) wholly inaccurate "quotes" to make Israelis appear insidious, and other insulting behavior such as abuse of Yiddish.
You think I was quick to block you? That's not how I remember it. I thought I put up with your rehashing of personal attacks, your unresponsiveness to questions, and your pestering for what felt like forever, see for instance here on this very page, before I blocked you for the last straw (compare my quite full and detailed block notice, where I used that phrase). That last straw was the way you referred in a contemptuous, dehumanizing way to people who had recently been killed, combined with your uncomprehending change-the-subject response ("What are you talking about?") to Fram's criticism of your language, your wording in that instance.
Thank you for giving me what you call a "chance" for another round, but I won't take you up on it. My advice to you is to let it go. But if you can't, you'll have to try to find an admin who may be sympathetic to your issues. There's a list of admins here. Check if they have been recently active first, and I advise against nagging them the way you have nagged me and the admin who reviewed your unblock request. Remember how that admin got so irritated he removed your talkpage access and reset the block? Try to be concise and to not repeat yourself. It really works better. Bishonen | talk23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
I admit, your reply regarding my complaint on Nishidani's personal insult on me (and general conduct), struck me as though you did not understand and I re-explained a few times too many. I have full interest of starting anew and being fully cautious of others' sensitivities. I wish others will follow suit. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor has resurfaced and is not editing, but is resuming his old activities. Some is in the removed comments on his Talk page here, some on the Talk page of the recent RfC/U he was taken to here, some on an A/NI concerning another editor here, and some on the ISIS Talk page. What can be done about this? I have pinged the admins on the RfC/U, but have not had a reply yet. No decision has been taken about taking him to AN/I to get a T/BAN, but I think our hand is being forced. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My first link does not seem to work, now I check it. I was trying to link to the first blanked page in the "View history" on his Talk page. Yes, I did see your comments, which is what prompted me to contact you. The other links to the RfC/U and the AN/I show far worse examples. (There are seven(!) WP:PAs dotted throughout the AN/I. and are unforgivable, in my opinion, as they cannot be answered properly in that forum.) I do not expect them to abate either now they have started again. Or maybe they will if he has seen this exchange. My every move is being shadowed, as the AN/I comments show, and each time he has attempted to bring me down with smear tactics. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at it, P123. (Sorry, I find your username impossible to remember and hard to type, hope you don't mind if I use a manageable version.) Watch this space. Bishonen | talk11:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for having a word with Worldedixor, Bishonen. I appreciate it, especially as no admin involved in the RfC/U responded to my call for help. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel I should explain my cryptic "The worm has turned" remark to Dougweller, as it seems to have caused so much misunderstanding. During the difficulties that led ultimately to the RfC/U, I had exchanges with him about how to deal with the problem. During that time I steadfastly resisted taking Worldedixor to AN/I and never rose to the bait during the persistent, almost daily harassment on the ISIS Talk page. The AN/I was the first time I hit back, which is unlike me, and countered the attacks. I did so because this time my name was being dragged through the mud in front of a new set of co-editors who know nothing of the history here and I value my reputation. That is why I said to Dougweller, "The worm has turned". I have seen Gregkaye's acknowledgment of your mediation in this matter and I join him in what he said there. Thank you. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
In other words, you changed your mind and decided that it was time that you countered his attacks. That's what I thought you meant. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(Thank you too, and gosh, I wonder if Darwinbish will be thanked for "mediation" next..!) It looks like I read "ANI" in your header on Dougweller's page, even though it clearly said "RFC/U". I should have told WE (actually with even more force) that it was perfectly proper to alert Dougweller to the RFC. If my remark was still on WE's page, I'd go back and correct myself. Bishonen | talk09:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
mopping needed?
Can you please take a look at my lasttwo edits and related edits by others? Perhaps semi-protect the articles; this edit warring with multiple new SPAs is tiresome. I guess I can keep reverting, since it's SPAs who won't discuss the changes, and it's been deemed vandalism by admin User:HJ Mitchell here. If not, what next DR step, given several users and articles are affected, do you suggest? I tried this and this. See History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran#Islamic_Republic_.28since_1979.29 and/or here for background details. --Elvey(t•c)00:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It certainly looks reasonable to me to keep reverting that particular edit, but to play safe, you'd much better ask HJ Mitchell, who placed the vandalism block for the IP range. He must have studied those articles more deeply than me. Harronn can be indeffed if they continue to disrupt, but so far they have only edited briefly on October 20. DR wouldn't be my first choice, since the user/s involved seem/s quite unwilling to discuss anything. Bishonen | talk11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for the input. I issued a couple warnings to two new apparent SPAs over this. [removed already-addressed issue] I'll see if HJ Mitchell is available to mop, as you don't seem keen to. My fixes were undone by another new apparent SPA, but another user stepped in to fix things.--Elvey(t•c)00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Long term disruptive editing by a SPA
I am sure that Sitush may have complained about this one, because this user has crossed the limits to some extent. On Nadar (caste), a SPA named User:Mayan302 is owning the article for a long time. Uselessly removes anything[] that he don't like.( e.g. [88][89])
Sitush reverted him,[90] and he started to label it as false source, that line looks fake[91], etc. Information[92] is 100% correct,[93] But Mayan302 keeps calling it as fake, and tries claiming it to be an Oral tradition, though the source is not supporting this information.
Today he started calling my edits to be vandalism[94][95] and told that :- Dont try to forcefully include your own point of view(original research). As per our above discussion there is not a single line in the source you have provided to support your claims. Please refrain from editing this article or provide valid refs.
When other editor told him to stop claiming these edits to be vandalism, he went ahead to defend that How can this not be vandalism.[96]
This user is accusing me falsely.Sitush didnt remove it because it had a reference(something relevant to the article). However he did ask me to alter it and make it more according to the source. And so I did. Please go through the nadar caste talk page. And morever the contents of the book posted by Sitush on the talk page are the exact contents of the book. However this user was trying to post something which was not at all in the source. Thats why I had to revert his edits. He was also repeatedly taunting me by quoting wikipedia rules. I am a single purpose account and this user is discriminating me because of that. He didnt bother the page when Sitush was around.Mayan302 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
He is also not willing to discuss anything. Sitush himself confirmed that its a myth in the talk page. Please check the source and the content he is trying to include. You will find out where the problem is coming from. He is forcefully trying to include the line that the nadars and izhavas of India came from Srilanka(or connected to Srilankan Nadars. I really dont understand). However this is not at all supported by the source he includedd. I also told him that I ll include the line if he provided another valid source. I may be a SPA but I have always followed the rules of Wikipedia. He reverted my edit for the 3rd time without discussing. Please look into this patiently. Thank you.Mayan302 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sitush agreed with the reference and he never talked about re-wording, you just couldn't understand what he has written. If I never discussed these,[97] why I had response from you after 40 days? [98]Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Its not urgent. Its just one insignificant line. Mr.Blades has a tendency to hype things up. Its also not a very complicated problem to solve. All you have to do is compare the source:
copied from article talk(page)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Another category of skilled workers in increasing demand, who commuted between South India and Sri Lanka, was that of the coconut and palmyrah toddy tappers. These communities have not received the same attention as the two above-mentioned groups, but their case is extremely interesting because Indian and Sri Lankan myths of origin mirror each other. Those of the Nalavar in the north and the Durava in the south of the island connect them with Madurai princesses who would have brought them to the island when marrying Sri Lankan kings. Those of the Izhava in southern Kerala, of the Tiyan/Tevan in northern Kerala and of the Shanar/Nadar in southern Tamilnadu connect them with Sri Lanka in a similar way, adding that these migrants were disappointed with the treatment they received on the island and returned to India, bringing with them the first coconut trees. The very names of Izhava and of Tiyan are supposed to be derived respectively from Ilam, that is Ceylon, and from tivu, island. The same corpus of legends includes episodes relating to five artisan castes who deserted the land of the Chera king Cheraman Perumal to seek asylum in Sri Lanka, and were forcibly brought back. Among Sri Lankan craftsmen, many families of blacksmiths used to claim a South Indian origin dating from the fifteenth century. So did washermen and other service groups. Most of them have more recently dropped these claims in favour of a nondescript Sinhala origin 'from time immemorial'."
( this is the quotation from the book posted by Sitush on the talk page)
with the line bladesmulti just added to the article. Blades's line claims that the Izhava caste of kerala and nadar caste of tamilnad are connected to the srilakan nadars. This line first of all makes no sense and is also not according to the source. You can also check the talk page of the article. You ll understand what I am trying to say. If you cant solve this problem within a week, I ll try contacting some other admin. No probs. Thank you! Mayan302 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, King Shadeed. It's not exactly a credible death threat, and I suppose he got very frustrated, but it's totally unacceptable all the same. I've blocked indefinitely. That's not the same as a ban, which a single admin can't do, but it means he won't get unblocked until and unless he writes a convincing unblock request. Bishonen | talk00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
Kudos to you (barnstar)
The Mediator Barnstar
I really appreciate your recent attempt at intervention. The most I have been able to have done at this stage is drop hints and try to open doors. Wikipedia needs people like you. I was greatly encouraged to see your posts. Gregkaye✍♪08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
? Me? Thank you very much. A mediation barnstar is a first, and not something I'd ever expect, as I don't regard myself as famous for my tact. (I was never one for hints. ;-)) Bishonen | talk09:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
Of course you. P123ct1 is giving me a lot of support in my own present difficulties and its the least I can do to appreciate those helping him gain the space to be the Wikipedia editor that he wants. It's obviously important for people on Wikipedia to accept fellow editors just for what they are able to present on-line and I'm quite happy to big up your support in achieving that. Since responding to your mail I've chatted to our m8 and I know that your tactful intervention in his involvements makes a great difference. Gregkaye✍♪19:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
No. It means I'm alerting you that admins may block or ban editors in those controversial areas if they violate our principles, our standards of behavior, or our policies. It doesn't matter what country contributors are from, it only matters that they edit constructively. (Nobody knows where logged-in users are from, in any case. I have no way of finding out where you live, unless you choose to write it on your userpage.) If they're new users, they're not expected to know about Wikipedia's policies right from the start, but it's important that they're prepared to listen to advice and information from experienced users. I hope you noticed the last sentence of the text on your page, it's very important: "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date." Please note that you can sign your posts on talkpages through one of the methods described here. Bishonen | talk13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
Thank you for exercising common sense and blocking an obvious troll, despite the decree of somebody who likes to simultaneously be just another editor and more important than everyone else, and despite ANI's naive insistence on interpreting AGF as a suicide pact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry. You remember when Jimbo had to abjure the use of the block tool in 2009? It's clearly time he handed in the CheckUser flag, too.[99]Bishonen | talk19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC).
Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"
In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar
I just ran across something you wrote to a person in an unpleasant dispute (diff omitted to protect the allegedly guilty) that I thought was especially kind and humane. I liked your approach better than the template-and-block-them-all style, and I wanted to thank you for spending the extra time to write personal, thoughtful messages to people who are struggling. You are demonstrating that Wikipedia is still a place where civil discussions are possible. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Saying a user "has form" doesn't necessarily mean they have a pedigree, but they probably unseated a rider or fell at some point, and the punter is making a prediction about future performance w r t the same issues. I suppose it would be improper to take bets on the outcome? Bishonen | talk14:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
I am not sure if you can do anything but user Brian Everlasting is currently changing articles "History" to "Background" apparently on the basis that people can get offended by misreading History as "His Story". :) I find it very weird.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've certainly heard of the history/herstory duality, and I'm a little surprised the people responding at the pump seem so innocent of it. We have an article on the concept herstory. However, I share the incredulity generally expressed in the thread; I'm not sure whether the proposal is a troll or merely harebrained. However, the article edits surely matter more. If they should continue, after the reverts (I see NQ has done good work there) and the negative response at the Pump, somebody should speak to the user. Not necessarily an admin, you know, BabbaQ! Bishonen | talk22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC).
User:Til Eulenspiegel
Hello Bishonen, I am requesting an unblocking to editor Til Eulenspiegel. My reasons being, this user is a great editor, and sometimes Wikipedia can get to all of us causing frustration and confusion which leads to stupid edits. I'v been in those frustrating situations before and just recently as well. Til Eulenspiegel is a hardheaded editor, but a great lawyer when it comes to controversial topics and edits; and there are less editors editing towards biblical articles now because of some recent discussions like this [100], which causes editors to retire from Wikipedia. Please consider my request. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Can't be done, sorry. I know Til is a good editor in many ways, and he edits important articles that don't generally get enough attention. And I also think we often focus too much here on what people say when they're frustrated and lose their temper. Nevertheless I've blocked him twice, in situations when I think any admin would have, but I've never liked having to do it. Subsequently, I've gone out on a limb for Til, first unblocking him without asking anybody else (24 August), then twice restoring his talkpage access (13 and 16 September) after two different admins had removed it.[101] When I argued with those admins, they both a little reluctantly deferred to me, which I appreciated; but that'll have to be it. The way it works is, I'm pretty much the last admin who can unblock Til now; I've worn out my credit as far as he's concerned, and I'm not altogether sure I even want to any more. :-(
I doubt any other admin would be willing to unblock unilaterally either. It's possible, theoretically, but he would certainly have to request unblock (see my 11 September block notice for how) first. Realistically, you'd better take it to WP:AN and seek consensus there for an unblock. That would be a proper and normal type of AN request, and you can certainly try it, but I'm sorry to have to tell you that consensus to unblock is a pretty remote chance, in view of his record and block log. Bishonen | talk00:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
I'm considering it. I believe the user's case can presented in a well matter as I know the editor wasn't blocked for vandalism or use of sock puppets. Anyway, why was Til blocked again? JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think that the best course would be for Til to stop editing even using IPs. If they could somehow contain themselves for a few months then there might just be a way back. They're knowledgeable but they have bumped with a lot of heads over a long time, and quite often those bumpings have worked against them. From my limited personal experience, that was the right outcome. In any event, and as Bish intimates, filing something at AN right now would most likely achieve nothing because there is a feeling that Til has exhausted WP:ROPE. - Sitush (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I linked to Til's block log above, JudeccaXIII, it's all in there. Drmies blocked him for a week on 11 September for "creating toxic atmosphere on Talk:Amharic language". I extended Drmies' block to indefinite less than a day later, for block evasion. That means he had edited from dynamic IPs while his account was blocked. He had done the same in May, too. Most people refer to IPs that are used in such a way as "socks". If Til told you he didn't use socks, perhaps he meant he didn't create sock accounts. But there's not that much difference. Block evasion is taken pretty seriously, and the fact that he has done that repeatedly, using a number of IPs, unfortunately makes your job much harder. Bishonen | talk02:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
Oh, I never discussed Til about the blockage or really discussed with Til at all in any discussion, perhaps one. So the editor did use sock puppets, I just guessed the editor wouldn't use socks by assumption the edits of Til were commonly well in biblical articles, I was wrong. Still, I believe the editor can come back, just not right now because the block is too recent. Thanks for the info Bishonen --Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
True. JudeccaxII, if Til ever logs in, which I would expect, he'll know of this discussion, since you linked his name above. Til, if you're reading this, Sitush gives you good advice, I agree with everything he says. Sitush, I believe Til has stopped, but it hasn't been long enough. Bishonen | talk09:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
Rouge Admin
" Come on, these items are supposed to be links "
Hey, I had enough trouble figuring out how to make the posting, much less make it a link. May our Reptilian Overlords® (Who I, for one, welcome) spare my worthless life. 96.240.54.122 (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen; Thanks for protecting the Sigmund Freud page. At least 3-4 editors have had a recurrent difficulty with disruptive editing from User:Allmancer in the last 3 months from his disruptive edits on 3 separate sections. We have already run an RfC for him on the latest Infobox dispute which was nearly unanimous (possible even snowball) to limit the number of names posted in the Infobox (it was over 44 names). If you are asking us to run another RfC to confirm the virtually unanimous opinion already found in the last RfC then let me know. This is the third incident with Allmancer from the last three months on seemingly trivial matters which show his difficulty with very rudimentary Freud material. In the first instance he caused the article to be locked by Admin on this edit [102] because he was misreading/misrepresenting material in Peter Gay's book on Freud. In a second instance, Allmancer began edit warring with User:MartinEvans on the Freud Talk page regarding Allmanacer's lack of understanding of Freud's book on Moses (Freud claims Moses is an Egyptian) which caused much lost editor time to multiple editors. Now User:Allmancer seems to be requesting a second RfC for a virtually unanimous result for limiting the size of the Infobox. All 3 of us will follow your advice on how to follow-up (MartinEvans, ImprovingWiki, and myself) and it would be helpful if all of us were not losing so much editing time because of these repeat problems with User:Allmanacer. Please advise and if needed I can provide further diffs for his disruptive edits. FelixRosch (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Reply with new header to give tps a shout: ahoy!
I have trouble following the discussion on the talkpage, FelixRosch. Where and when was the infobox RfC? I don't see it in the TOC of archives 10 or 9 (9 goes back to August 2012), and then I gave up looking. Perhaps there wasn't a really clear header for it. Please link. (I see people asking for such a link on talk, too. If it has been provided, I must be missing it in amongst the text.) And yes, please, some diffs for edits you claim to be disruptive would be useful, with context. I have plenty of difficulty with rudimentary Freud material myself. ;-) If one of my admin stalkers is at all at home with it, do feel free to help. Other stalkers too, of course, but it looks a bit like the situation might need admin tools. Bishonen | talk17:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, The Infobox RfC I had just mentioned had just gone into Archive after the bot removed the RfC template archived with "Supports" and "opposes" here: [103]. Second, the date of your fellow admin dealing with the first version of the disruptive editing from February regarding User:Allmanacer misreading/misrepresenting the Professor Peter Gay Freud book is on this diff [104]. The link to User:Allmanacer debate with MartinEvans is still at the very bottom of the Talk page there on "Judaism and sexuality" (currently the top-most section) at (Talk:Sigmund Freud). All three of us (MartinEvans, ImprovingWiki, and myself) will try to provide all the detailed Freud info you might need to gain rapid insight into this recurring issue of disruptive editing from User:Allmanacer which is taking up so much of all of our time since February. If I can provide further diffs or links then let me know and I'll try to do as much as I can to assist here. FelixRosch (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm being slow here, please ask another admin if you're getting impatient. I haven't forgotten it, but it's kind of work intensive, and I've got a lot on IRL. Bishonen | talk13:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
I've finally taken a look, Felix, sorry it took so long. That's a pretty messy situation, and I don't see any clear consensus for any one alternative in the RfC. Having "influences/influenced" parameters in the Freud infobox at all seems to me a permanent open invitation to edit warring the details of it forever more, debating the sourcing, etc etc, and chewing up editor time and energies that could be spent more usefully. In fact, I was surprised the suggestion of User:Choor monsterhere to get rid of those parameters didn't gain more traction. Especially in view of the strong consensus here to remove the influence parameters from Template:Infobox, with many trenchant arguments ("attracts cruft" was particularly good, I thought). It seems counter-intuitive to the ignorant (me) to remove the parameters from the template, yet hang on to them for somebody as influential as Freud. There is really no listing the people Freud influenced, IMO. For instance, having 44 names is unhelpful, I agree with you there. If 44, then why not 88? On the other hand, reducing them to two or three becomes arbitrary, too.
I don't know how you or others feel about removing the parameters, but what I would suggest is a new RfC with more clear-cut alternatives: should we have the influence parameters in Freud's infobox or not? Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk19:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen (Thanks for your input - wrote this just beore you last posted, so further comments to follow). What you will find with regard to User FelixRosch when you catch up with the archived RfC thread is: 1. The absence of “a formal neutrally worded notice” (WP:RFC) and instead a crude request to support/oppose on a question on 43 or 7 names in relation to which opposing viewpoint both editors cited clearly state they were misrepresented and no reference was made to the separate issue of the listing of influences. 2. No attempt at “addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise” (WP:CONSENSUS) or any engagement with editors who, in marked contrast, made sensible compromise suggestions eg use of the hide button, links to Category Pages in addressing concerns about length of the infobox content. 3. Contrary to WP:CLOSE these editors concerns and arguments regarding the representiveness of the chosen names and consistency of content with other comparable articles were ignored, as have questions put to him regarding the closing of the RfC. Instead an entirely fraudulent claim for “majority consensus” (a term nowhere to be found in WP:CONS) is made on the basis of fictitious edit by a non-existent editor called Goethe.
You may wish to note editors in favour of keeping the long-established (and hence consensus, crowd sourced content) are those with a long history of input into the Freud article. User FelixRosch has no history of contribution to the article apart from ongoing attempts to remove long-standing valid and valuable content in accord with his own POV. Given the failure of User FelixRosch to comply with/understand fundamental WP policy guidelines and his transparently fraudulent claims it should be obvious that his account of previous exchanges and criticism of my or anyone else’s editorial conduct cannot be taken seriously. Almanacer (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Bishonen: The edit posted was by Goethean for adding Goethe, which shall likely daze User:Allmanacer for days. This is the diff and date for anyone who cares to look it up on the edit history page at Sigmund Freud:
(cur | prev) 16:55, 4 September 2014 Goethean (talk | contribs) . . (151,345 bytes) (+48) . . (+goethe, schopenhauer to influences. These are well-known, easily sourced, important influences.) (thank)
The accusations of User:Allmanacer are again lacking in reliability and he makes a repeated personal attack and disruption which needs to be addressed. FelixRosch (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I am glad you protected it. But you reverted my latest edits, where I replaced dead links with live ones, and addressed comments on the talk page of Stoning article. After the revert, the article has this dead link. You also deleted the section on Islamic state, which some other editor added, which I think was fine and well supported. Please check, some of your revert might have been inadvertent.
FWIW, after noticing Qizilbash123's edit warring with multiple editors, I had posted a note on Qizilbash123's talk page to stop edit warring on October 27 2014. See here (Qizilbash123 deleted that note, see here). You blocked him on October 30 2014.
I urge you to check and if appropriate, replace the dead links with the working ones I added on November 3 and 4, as well as the section on Islamic state. RLoutfy (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Good grief, how did that happen? I'm so sorry, thanks for alerting me. Yes, I only meant to remove the tags. I have reverted to your last edit and removed the tags manually, including an NPOV tag at the section "Iran" which apparently I had added myself, as a crowning idiocy. (? Presumably by reverting somebody who had removed it.) Inadvertent indeed. Could you please check that everything looks all right now? I do apologize. Bishonen | talk21:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
With regards to this edit. I was away from the machine and only received one alert which said "Worldedixor and 3 others left messages on your talk page" and as I had other messages on my talk page I did not notice them higher up the page (until just now because I have been out and there was an alert and a "You have new messages " from P123ct1 which was at the bottom of the bloated section). -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the scenario where you would actually receive 45 alerts is unlikely, but if you had been sitting at the keyboard and been quick to continually reload the page… anyway, there were too many edits. Bishonen | talk21:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
An Email is coming your way
Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Your page is very exciting, it's one of the few things I can make time to keep up with lately! All the best, Risker (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Please either unprotect or semi-protect the article and give the edit-warriors a chance to accept consensus. The basic cause of the edit war was an RFC on reducing the number of names in the infobox. The RFC had expired but was not closed. One editor shortened the infobox as per what he or she saw as consensus. Another editor restored the infobox because the RFC was not yet closed. Now that I have closed the RFC with consensus to shorten the infobox, lengthening the infobox is editing against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Robert, that's sort of untimely, but you probably didn't read my advice above?[110] I don't think there was consensus, and I will not change the protection at this time. Bishonen | talk21:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for your verdict on the last RfC despite the strident claims to the contrary. I assume we now proceed according to WP:CONS and restore the original pre-RfC content? I'm in need of further guidance though on the new RfC you set up. Is it an appropriate topic for the Freud Talk Page, should not deliberation on parameters be first aired on the Infobox Project page, as was the case previously (thanks for the link - interesting debate)? Note by the way that that debate, as I read it, and the decision to suspend the parameters applies to the Person infobox template which does not apply in the case of the Freud article - this links to the Philosopher or Scholar template. Unfortunately your initiation statement for the new RfC fails to make this clear and in other respects lacks the requisite "neutrality" WP:RFC. In general I would say, as someone who edits regularly in this area, that "eruptions of conflict" goes with the territory for the Freud article but most have, until the recent dispute, been resolved through a collaborative, consensus building approach. I would add that historically there have been no major conflicts about the Infobox content currently in dispute which is consistent with that applying to other major intellectual figures just as controversial as Freud (and for which the same Infobox template applies). Almanacer (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't assume that. You would restore the long list version yet again, while the issue remains contentious? There is no consensus about the appropriate length of the list, or if there is (as Robert thinks), it's consensus for the short version. You'll most likely be blocked for disruption and renewed edit warring if you reinstate your preferred version. Please leave it alone. And please put what you have to say about it on the Freud talkpage, not here. I really don't think the distinctions between types of infoboxes are a big deal as regards the RfC I started: it puts one simple question, and is certainly a lot "cleaner" than the previous RfC, which ran into the sands and was lost. Please specify how my statement "lacks the requisite neutrality", because I don't see it. And if there's something I haven't made clear, why don't you clarify it in a comment, instead of coming here to quibble? I see you haven't so far expressed any kind of opinion on the question asked in the RfC. (Nor have I: I merely put the question.) Do you have one? Bishonen | talk11:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
What you have basically said in initiating the RfC is look at the Infobox Project Page discussion/decision to remove the parameters in question in the Person Template and then make a decision about the Freud article. I don’t think that is a neutral way of framing the RfC because it omits reference to the fact that the Freud article is linked to a different Template (Philosopher/Scholar) where the parameters remain in place, a point overlooked by User:Choor monster whom you choose to cite. Nor is this a quibble. In the latter case, and unlike the Person Template (which includes actors, celebs etc), there is a well established corpus of scholarly opinion available to determine the appropriateness of the listings. I’ll post on the RfC when you respond to my question: if the parameters of the Person Template are determined on the Infobox Project Page, should this not also be the case for all other Templates, including that applying to the Freud article? On this we have a different understanding of WP policy. This is also the case with regard to “a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal” WP:NOCONSENSUS and the fact that content undisputed over a period of years in a well-watched article (the longer listings) constitutes consensus content WP:CONS. Almanacer (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Having taken a look at the Guidelines for Administrators conduct it seems to me WP:INVOLVED now applies. Remarks like "went off the rails" about contributions you evidently disagree with and unwarranted speculation about "endemic conflict" lack neutrality. User:FelixRosch certainly thinks you're on board.Almanacer (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think Bishonen has behaved neutrally. Making accusations like those above is not helpful. You could take the matter to ANI if you really believe that Bishonen has not been neutral, but the chances are that any discussion there won't arouse much interest and will peter out without result. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like an ice-cream in the shape of Africa, to me. Probably not, but it was suggested previously that all that material could be integrated (somewhere?) in the article main body (provided it was fully sourced, of course). So I'm waiting for it all to kick off again down there. But we can but hope, .... 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) and I'd certainly never accuse you, of all people, of being stupid!
Re. signature
It's understandable: you saw what you recognised as behaviour that annoys you and couldn't resist. Please don't mind the rest of my response to you there; it's 'cause I knew he'd jump on the opportunity to play the victim card (which we don't seem to have avoided, anyway). Right, yeah, I'll show myself out... 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Redirects outside mainspace
Hi Bish, I know that you know but I don't know what you know. Do redirects work the same way outside mainspace as within it? Can I create WP:LTA/IAC and redirect it to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm? My gut feeling is that it would not be a problem but I screw up enough without risking something like this. And my opening here is a very vague reference to a song by The Kursaal Flyers - da-daah! - the short-lived Brit 70s band featuring a wide-boy with "elephant trunk" hair. Those were the days! - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that works, is a good idea, and is done; examples: WP:UNID (LTA), WP:Jagged 85 cleanup (other). I was going to do that yesterday but I couldn't convince myself of what a good name would be. I was thinking of WP:LTA-IAC but I suppose the slash would be good, although technically that would make "IAC" as subpage of WP:LTA ... hmmm, that might be seen as an advantage, and this shows several precedents. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, lots of precedent, so I've gone ahead and created the slash version for you. I wish it was a little catchier, but it's very logical. People do that indeed. You know, very zany and out-of-control people even use WP shortcuts to redirect to userspace sometimes. There was WP:AN/S to your very own noticeboard, for instance… well, that one ended up deleted, but not without a fight… anyway, there are shortcuts like WP:CGTW and WP:OGTW and nobody questions them. (Not yet, but perhaps I've beaned them now.) Bishonen | talk09:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC).
Hi. You indef.blocked User:ENT 70. The user is now back as User:96.51.75.106, not really a case of sock as such as the user even admits it (and it's WP:DUCK) as the user sometimes discussed as ENT70, sometimes as the IP), looks more like not knowing that's the block is for the person, not the account.Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeppiz. The IP is supposedly dynamic, but apparently not very, since they've been using it for a while. I've blocked it for a couple of weeks and put a polite note on User talk:ENT 70. Whether or not they knew they're not allowed to edit at all, there are no sanctions left: they're already indeffed without talkpage access. You did right to remove the posts. (What an annoying character. They not only don't sign, making the stuff harder to locate, but actually remove the SineBot-added sig. Now I'm pissed.) Bishonen | talk16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
More than he deserves and better written than I could ever do. I'm afraid I may be the admin who showed him too much leniency with respect to Doug and P123ct1, but he wears out one's patience with his passive-aggressive, long-winded, disingenuous style. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm also impressed by your response, Bish. I think he's had enough - if he continues in the same vein it will be time to take his talk page privileges away from him. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't you in particular, Bbb23, it was me as well. I do think it's right that admins put up with more, considering the power balance is in their favour, so it takes a lot before I'll block someone for abusing an admin. Oh, yes, Doug, his talkpage privileges are precarious now, I agree. I'm glad neither of you think I was too sharp — I was pretty aggravated. Bishonen | talk17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen Hi, I've recently placed some intervention followed by some commentary, which didn't go the way I expected, at User talk:Worldedixor. However its been suggested that as "RfC/U was very badly constructed and was not generally supported,.. the analysis of it is unnecessary" and that my "wall of text does not help Worldedixor (as uninvolved administrators will not appreciate having to read it)". I have not agreed with the collapse of other contents in the past and am unsure of the most appropriate way forward. I'm certainly happy to either to collapse the commentary content myself or let you do it if you see fit. I strongly feel that, for all of Worldedixor's clear faults and recently heightened drama there has been a whole heap of misrepresentation which I don't think should be the way of things here. Gregkaye✍♪20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, GregKaye, I would probably understand you better if I was more familiar with the RFC and with your own editing, and Technophant's, and everybody else's who's involved in conflict with WE. You kind of seem to assume I am. I've read through your long post on WE's page several times, and your post here, and I'm still not sure who you think has perpetrated misinformation — Worldedixor? other people? who? — and who suggested your wall of text didn't help — and where? (Do you know how to use diffs? See Simple diff and link guide.) OK… I've found it on your page (but it really is a bit research-intensive to read you. :-( Diffs are good.) Aha, PBS. Yes, he suggests you should blank or collapse your "Article talk page abuses" section. I totally agree. Bull's eye. Reviewing admins won't be helped by it, they'll feel slowed down and frustrated by having to read it and, well, you know, research it… and Worldedixor won't be helped by being further encouraged to see himself as a great spirit encountering opposition from mediocre minds, meaning anybody who contradicts him. Compare the motto on his userpage. (Such encouragement is kind of what I take away from your long post, sorry if I'm misunderstanding it.) It's my personal opinion that he's too much that way inclined already. I don't want to seem unwelcoming here, but I'd really prefer to be drop this now. The ball is in Worldedixor's court, and if he posts another unblock request, it'll be in another uninvolved admin's court. There's not much either you or I can do. Oh, and I'd much rather you did the blanking/collapsing yourself — not me — both you and I would look better for it. (I fixed your redlink to his page above.) Bishonen | talk21:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
BishonenThank you I have added the collapse (if that's not too much of an oxymoron) and have informed PBS of this action and have also invited comment on the text that I added. Knowing that you probably want to leave the subject I won't invite the same from you but am open. Thanks for your involvements. If anything I hope that my clarification of wrongs may help Worldedixor to fact up to the genuine issues beyond any views he may have had of being persecuted. Gregkaye✍♪12:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey. The user is back using IP address 24.222.82.111. I caught him removing the conversation we had about him recently on my talk page and I undid his edit. King Shadeed 14:21, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, messing with your talkpage made it really obvious. I've blocked the IP for a couple of weeks, as it is dynamic but not very dynamic. Bishonen | talk23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Thank you. King Shadeed 18:51, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Heya
Hi Bish - you've been very good in the past about checking out users who are harassing me. Mind taking a look at Padresfan94? It's obviously (duck) someone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet based on the behavior - basically only editing in order to support a particular side in pre-existing content disputes, and following me around - but I'm not sure whose. The stalking me is getting annoying. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Pity nobody blocked or topic banned them for the slow edit war on Crisis pregnancy center a couple of weeks ago; it's a little late for that now. There's not much I can do at the moment, and your recent reverts on Care Net only make it more difficult. I agree there's a cheesy sock smell, but they can't be checkusered without a concrete suspicion of a particular sockmaster. Please let me know if you're able to think of somebody. Bishonen | talk23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
Checkuserblock monapisser
Hello, You or Ponyo (not sure of which) blocked this user it seems for sockpuppetry. I was just wondering if this was done thru an SPI. It seems another account may have been involved as well, that's if of course that I wasn't mistaken in interpretation of your comments on her talk page in thinking that this was for sockpuppetry.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I e-mailed Ponyo right away. And I'm now convinced the territory is IAC territory, just as Sitush suggested much earlier. There were certain characteristic features. Anyway, sorry I was rather inefficient there. If I'd stopped to think, I would have first revoked tpa (they were amplifying the conspiracy theories even as I looked at it), then blanked, then revdel'd. Instead, I did it in the opposite order, and revdel is much slower than the other two. Not intrinsically, but I fumbled around because I don't have much practice with it. Bishonen | talk07:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
Oh you spoiled kids!
When I had the admin bit, we didn't have the revdel option. We needed to delete the page and then slectively restore older versions ... or something like that (memory goes with age). Nowadays you have it all so easy. Just click and its gone. That is why you take it for granted. And never learn to do things properly. Well, in my days... hacking cough interruption. :-) Abecedare (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I used to have the delete + selective restore down pat, I was pretty fast with that, in the old days! [Cackling laugh] Click and it's gone is easier, I suppose… but it's more worrying, I need to stare at it and scratch my head for a while. You know, like the "Buy with one click" option. Easy is the new hard. :-) Bishonen | talk07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
Very nice arrow, can you tell me how to produce it on a keyboard? I tried the ^ and then to slide the pipe character, "|", in under it, but it wouldn't work. OK, I see you used a template — kind of hard to remember, though. Your smiley, on the other hand, doesn't look very expressive on my screen. Apparently I don't have support for the character(s) involved. :-( I hope it's blushing, lol. Bishonen | talk17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
A really, really impressive movie--even if interrupted by screaming children, a suspected burglar, and more children. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom elections
Well I shall clearly die of boredom or old age waiting for you to respond on my page with an answer - where please is the link to this year's Arbcom nominations/fools that want to submit their names? Giano(talk)19:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No. I won't be doing either. Mentally, I have rather dismissed the Arbcom as a verbose and pointless bunch of Foundation toadies. When one puts them to the back of one's mind it's surprising how little the Arbcom impinges in the project - which incidentally is really run by yet another cowboy outfit known as the Foundation. On the odd occasion I do glance at Arb cases these days, they appear to be just trillions of repetitious, badly written words written by the same exceedingly dull people, but I suppose it's better than letting those same boring individuals write pages and bore the backsides off the general public. I can't help but wonder what sort of person it is who has the time and inclination to read all that waffle and bullshit, let alone give up their supposedly valuable time to adjudicate on it. Giano(talk)22:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Why, thank you. I'm more and more coming round to thinking the most important admin task is to protect users like you from the pests. Though I feel a bit like I'm cleaning out the Augean stables with a teaspoon when I block them one by one for a while. There's something wrong with the system! Somebody should tell that person about the overlinking, too.. more stuff for them to not listen to. Bishonen | talk23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC).
Here have a tablespoon. I mean it. Otherwise I may be forced to grab a ladle of mine own. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
Hehe, nice link. No, it won't happen, what a horrible idea; do it yourself! But how did you make a page like that, and form a link to it? I hope one doesn't have to fashion an URL such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2010%2FCandidates%2FPreloader&editintro=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2014%2FCandidates%2FEditintro&summary=&nosummary=&prefix=&minor=&title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration+Committee+Elections+December+2014%2FCandidates%2FBishonen&create=Click+here+to+create+a+candidate+profile. by hand? Bishonen | talk01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
I put my name "Bishonen" into the box on the "how to apply" page and pressed apply, then copied the URL. I was of course hoping that it wouldn't save the application automatically, well... part hoping. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
About the language thing ...
I almost posted something earlier today, but declined because it seemed cruel to possibly suck someone into the GGTF arbcom case drama vortex ... (I had been doing really well avoiding until I followed a link on Drmies talk page, darn him.) Anyway, since you're in now ...
I trust / hope this statement of yours [111], referencing an "inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language" was self-deprecating irony, right? NE Ent00:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm out again, I've removed my comment (and have apologised to Brad on his page for wrong-footing his). Anyway, that was the point-of-view, or "focus", thing, in lit crit terminology: "You condescend to [that which you construct as] my inferior sense of cultural nuance in the English language." (POV in the literary sense.) But thank you, I appreciate it. :-) Bishonen | talk01:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
Simple edit
Is this edit allowed to state a source is in a different language: [112]? per WP:RSUE??? I don't know of any Wikipolicy that shows so, but is this also allowed as a style for articles? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, why not? It's helpful. I'm not sure why you wanted to remove it. I would say the relevant policy is "What is not forbidden is allowed", or Use common sense, or "Do it if it's helpful". Well, no, I just made those up, but I'm sure you see what I mean. WP:RSUE isn't relevant, as this isn't about a source in a different language, it's just a translation of a word.
The parenthesis you removed isn't absolutely necessary, I suppose, since it's followed by a link to our article Q source, which, as User:A Georgian says in their edit summary, contains the translation of Quelle = "source". But it's helpful to the non-German-speaking reader. Please leave it. (Btw, please use edit summaries, so people can know why you performed an edit — a revert, in this case. I'm sure you had a reason, but I don't know what it was, and the person reverting you couldn't know either.) Bishonen | talk20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC).
I just wasn't sure if that was allowed as manual of style for Wikipedia articles. I usually revert then discuss, but I wasn't so certain. Cheers — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Good job!
Dougweller's blaming you for conning convincing him to run for Arbcom. Good job! (but I thought you liked him) NE Ent00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Your decision not to run is disappointing yet also liberating. If you had run I would have felt compelled to throw my hat in the ring as well. We could have driven off the Arbcom cliff together; Wikipedia's own Thelma & Louise! I suppose I'll just have to redouble my efforts in corrupting poor Darwinbish, further fuelling outlandish sock conspiracy theories. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen dear! Just nominate yourself and have done with it. You are the best qualified and most highly respected Admin there is. So please, just do it. Giano(talk)19:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I just tried to nominate you myself, but was met with a wall of templates and {{}} so ran away from it. I'm serious though, GO FOR IT!Giano(talk)19:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You tried to nominate me, lol? Giacomo, I love you too, but you don't have my password, for all that. Trying to nom me without being logged in as me is doomed to failure. I think. I hope. I think that was the problem, not the templates: both you and Lady C and Bishzilla have mastered those templates before — are they really worse now? Also, you know, messing up the templates would be a bagatelle actually, there's an eagle-eyed crowd watching today, ready to rush in and knock any accidental misformatting nicely into shape. In other words: you nominate yourself, go on! You command immense respect here. Or at least try to persuade your sainted aunt!
@Tex: Six years are less than the blink of an eye in the life of a prehistoric dinosaur. Bishzilla will probably need to rest for another millennium or two after her exertions! Bishonen | talk20:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Oh No, No, I could possible stand as a candidate. It would be the pestering from menfolk that would bother me. I remember the trouble that my closet friend, poor, dear Nancy had to endure from evil, lascivious men in politics, and Wikipedia has more than it's fair share of those - and we all know to whom I am referring! He never takes his eyes from my poor, curvaceous womanly body. Thank goodness for the Gender Gap ladies (The Wikipedia WI) who are rectuming the balance here - and that presumptuous Mr Corbett is about to be sent packing, about time too. No my dear Mrs Bishonem, it's you who must stand - I'm quite sure you won't be troubled by men. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
When I saw you mentioning Mr Corbett, I thought you were going to say he was being nominated for ArbCom. Now that would be something. ArbCom could do with livening up, and who better than Eric to do that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Not troubled by men, is it? Dear Lady Catherine, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your own page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Be sure to use your sex appeal. Bishonen | talk14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear! I'm getting a teeny feeling that you are offended, you really shouldn't be. I do so envy you, poor dear Mrs Bishonen, you can have no idea the torment that I have to endure, knowing that men find me so irresistible - their eyes a twinkling and revolving at me. I often wish I too were just a poor, simple woman with plain uninteresting features. No you must stand for Arbcom, I insist. There's been no female Arb since poor little Mrs Risker hung up her skates and returned to her icecaps - I believe she was of modest appearance too; so you're just the sort of person Wikipedia needs. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
TP, I still find the interface baffling, but I wrote a comment, I hope it's in the right place. (I recommend unblock.) Bishonen | talk01:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
Thanks Bish. Sorry about the interface. If I could create a "send a message to..." feature where I could ask you for input and it would email you with a link. You click the link and all there is is a box for you to type in and hit submit - would that make things easier for these types of situations?--v/r - TP06:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it might, but it was after all easy enough; I found the right text field, and now I know where it is. What I really need to do is make another effort to deal with other UTRS situations as well; in fact to review tickets, since I did sign up for UTRS with the idea of helping with them. I had some bad luck when I tried to figure it out at first; you were extemely helpful, TP, but I had to ask another reviewer about a mysterious case I was trying to understand, and they never replied. So I lost momentum. Loser Bishonen! Try again! And I'm also sorry I failed to give the IP user a block template explaining how to request unblock on their page; I've written a note to them. Lots of incompetence coming out in the light of day today. :-( Bishonen | talk11:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
You may be a lot of things, but incompetent isn't one of them. Besides, I have yet to write any user documentation after two full years of operation.--v/r - TP18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Editing Sarbajit Roy
You have blocked the talk page for editing.
I want to add some information about this important person. If you block my account like you're doing for everybody else than many students will be affected also, since we are all on National Knowledge Network connecting technical educational institutions in India. So please unblock the page. Prof Ravi IIT Kanpur (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It's true that the page Sarbajit Roy (which is a redirect) has been protected from editing (not by me), but its talkpage is not protected, you can write on it. Do you mean the deletion discussion — this page? Yes, I've semiprotected that, because of the abuse and edit warring from IAC socks. If that's the protection (=block from editing by new and unregistered editors) you mean, I'm afraid I don't want to undo it; there has just been too much disruption. I don't know it you noticed what I said in my edit summary: "Enough with the socking. If a bona fide non-autoconfirmed user wishes to take part in the discussion, you'll have to post on the talkpage, sorry." Oh… yes, you probably have seen it, because I see you have in fact posted on the talkpage. Please note that the discussion is of a redirect, not an article. There is nothing on that redirect page except technical code sending the reader to the India Against Corruption page. Sarbajit Roy is not mentioned on the India Against Corruption page, and that's why there shouldn't be a redirect of his name to it. Do you see my point? All your writing on the talkpage doesn't address it. The right of information act etc etc etc isn't relevant to it. Look, I'm sorry if this all sounds excessively technical, but I think what you want is probably not so much for the useless redirect to be kept, but either a) for there to be an article about Roy, or b) that Roy should be in the India Against Corruption article. Or both. That discussion really doesn't belong on a "Redirects for discussion" page. You'll have to take it to Talk:India Against Corruption, that's where it belongs. I do realize that talkpage is also semiprotected, but that's also because of socking, abuse, and threats. If a new user can create an account and manage to stay on Wikipedia for four days and make ten edits without disruption and without behaving like a sock/meatpuppet (please see WP:MEAT for the concept of meatpuppets) of users who have been seriously disrupting this site and harassing our volunteers, then it will be able to edit that page. I'm assuming you are who you say you are, and not a sock- or meatpuppet, but I can't speak for other administrators. Bishonen | talk11:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC).
Their last submission at the RfD talk includes We are serving the contact details through which any person who belongs to any part of the country can contact the head quarters of IAC (emphasis mine). - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You've just reverted an anon from Brazil at the arbcom case; Eric has just reverted one from China on his own talk. We know that IAC use proxies from all over the world and we know that they have taken an interest in the case. While both messages were pretty bizarre, I'm wondering if this is the start of today's wave. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bish, just a note to thank you for the time you spent on this. The article was promoted recently, and your help was invaluable. All the best, SlimVirgin(talk)19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing to you as you have, together with Worm_That_Turned, been dealing with BlueSalix in the past months. Among other reasons, you blocked him for making unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks. He was unblocked by WTT after retracting such accusations, and was advised to "get on with something useful".
In the last days, BlueSalix has been involved in a few heated AfD discussions around Boyd Bushman (engineer connected to some UFO claims). BlueSalix argued for deletion of the article, as well as one about Nick Cook, a journalist whose work was quoted in the Bushman article. In that discussion, Artw left a "keep" comment arguing for the article's potential [113]. BlueSalix's answer "I appreciate you appear to be very interested in paranormal and woo-woo topics, like Jim B. Tucker and the Bosnian Pyramids, however, we have objective standards for notability." ([114]) is a gratuitous and underhanded attempt to attack Artw's credentials.
As Artw defended himself, BlueSalix's attacks and insinuations grew worse: "A quick perusal seems to indicate that inserting fringe information into WP is an area of special interest for you." [115]. When Artw reminded him of civility, he answered: "I have said nothing uncivil. I'm not sure what it is with space alien/UFO enthusiasts responding to fact-based observations with WP:CIVIL charges" [116]. The dispute went on, as Artw attempted to erase the whole discussion between them only to have BlueSalix play the victim and ask for a block at ANI [117].
The final straw was on BlueSalix's talkpage, when Andrevan asked him to remove his comments about Artw. The two answers [118][119] once again use insinuation and sarcasm to superficially retract while insisting on their right. He uses the rhetorical device "Should I have provided diffs of his (Artw's) edits at Bosnian Pyramids?" I looked for those edits: [120]. There are four of them, from 2006 and 2007: 1 maintenance tag, 1 spelling correction, 1 adding a wikilink to Hoaxes, 1 removing dead links. All minor, none adding fringe. On the Jim B. Tucker article that BlueSalix also quoted, more edits [121] but nothing fringy either: Artw actually nominated the article at AfD ([122]).
To conclude, it seems to me that BlueSalix is once again resorting to underhanded battlefield tactics, unsubstantiated attacks and bad-faith retractions, and that he takes more enjoyment in such fights than in writing an encyclopedia. I'll let you judge of the possible remedies.
I should add that I am not personally involved in the debate, I have no opinion regarding the notability of Bushman or anyone else, and I don't believe any UFO claims that have been voiced by other participants in that discussion. I just don't think BlueSalix's tactics are a good way for the encyclopedia to defend itself against fringe POV-pushers, and that they actually hurt us more by creating a very nasty atmosphere around. Susuman77 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, Susuman77. While I've never had any previous interaction with you, I appreciate the fact that your calling for me to be blocked was important enough to be your 15th edit in the last 12 months. Thank you.
To clarify, Worm_That_Turned, I did not ask for a block/ban for ArtW. ArtW asked for a 1 year topic ban on UFO-related topics against me. Stalwart111, Hell_in_a_Bucket, Andrevan, LuckyLouie, Serialjoepsycho, and others indicated to him that would most likely not happen and no CIVIL attack had been made against him. ArtW then declared the following comment by me was a "smear" against him and must be deleted: "As an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines." ArtW then proceeded to edit and delete that, and the bulk of the rest my comments. Serialjoepsycho reverted his edits and deletions of my comments and warned him to stop. [123]
In background, yesterday I was subject to 3 successive WP:CIVIL complaints on ANI in the space of 24 hours (see: [124], [125], [126]). by a tightly coordinated group of editors (most with new, or recently reactivated dormant, accounts) who have been attempting to aggressively insert into WP the information that there is a plot by shapeshifting space aliens from the planet Pleiada Prime to infiltrate the U.S. government. All three ANIs were dismissed by reviewing admins within 30 minutes of being opened. These (mostly) newly minted editors have become incensed that I had successfully AfD'ed Boyd Bushman and, in addition to the block shopping (this is the fourth shopping treat for me in one day) have been very colorful in directing a variety of invectives against me like "slandering bozo" "jihadist," "colossal raging asshole," "worse than a rapist," etc. As I mentioned to Hell_in_a_Bucket here I understood, going into this, that - on a practical political level - it is usually impossible for a single editor to defend himself against a sustained attempt by disposable and dormant accounts to block-shop someone to death and I expected a message such as this to be coming before very long (and, if this doesn't stick, another couple more today and tomorrow to a revolving cast of admins and bureaucrats until a sympathetic one is found and I'm benched). I respectfully and, without objection, accept the indefinite block you told me you would place on me. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to look at this right now, it looks quite… voluminous. Just a technical point to you, BlueSalix: you haven't pinged Worm That Turned. Pinging only works if you link and sign in the same post. There, now I've pinged him for you. Bishonen | talk15:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
Thanks BlueSalix. I'll have a look at your side of the story as soon as I can. I'm just about to sign off for the day. I'm also less grumpy in the mornings, so will enjoy the fresh look. WormTT(talk) 15:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, Worm That Turned. Honestly, this issue is so convoluted and has been drawn out over so many days that, due to volume, I can't really begin to offer the history of diffs that would be likely to avoid my pending indefinite block. In my post, I ping'ed the group of editors, admins and bureaucrats who had been dealing with this ongoing matter so they might provide context on the situation to you, but - in retrospect - I'm not sure it will do much good in the long run for me for reasons I'd previously expressed here. When Ricky81682 warned one of the new accounts who has been calling for my block to desist, I jumped in and attempted to de-escalate with overt niceties but the response I received made it clear that anything short of my block was not of interest to them. I think my time on WP is probably drawing to a close and I'd like to quit voluntarily and without being blocked out, if I might request that. I apologize you were dragged into this. BlueSalix (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank everyone for reacting so quickly to my concerns, and to briefly address the points that BlueSalix raised in his defense:
Indeed, BlueSalix was in dispute with other editors who were pushing fringe theories, and who raised complaints about him in the last days. These editors and Artw, as far as I can tell, and not just out of AGF, have nothing in common besides being both in conflict with BlueSalix.
BlueSalix did not explicitly "ask for a block/ban of Artw". They took each other to ANI separately. He wrote afterwards, however: "I'm, honestly, shocked you didn't get a 30-day vacation for that." [127].
Artw was indeed reprimanded (and not blocked) for deleting the comments at the AfD. You quote above only part of your very first comment; the rest of it was the unfounded insinuations regarding his editing history. Removing that from the page was in my opinion justified as such accusations qualify as personal attacks, even though hatting would probably have lead to less drama.
BlueSalix mentions insults against him. These words come from an angry and frustrated Artw after his complaints were ignored; BlueSalix on the other hand made his attacks unprovoked, and here he does not address them in the slightest, but once again plays the victim, announces his retirement before he is unjustly blocked, etc.
Apologies anyway to Bishonen for cluttering her talk page, I post this here mostly to keep the discussion in the place it started, and as I think most participants are keeping an eye on it. Susuman77 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As noted, a total of three uninvolved editors (you, and the two I mentioned above) have commented on the AfD. Both of the others have repeatedly rejected Artw's claim that I made "insults" or that the AfD discussion was anything other than routine prior to his decision to begin deleting my opinions see: [128], with one editor advising ArtW: "Nothing in the original post was confrontational - it was an entirely ordinary nomination ... I'm an advocate for civility and BlueSalix and I have had our run-ins but seriously... you need a slightly thicker skin than that."[129] While I respectfully disagree with your opinion that ArtW is justified in editing/deleting my comments, or referring to me as an "asshole" and "worse than a rapist" because "his complaints were ignored," I again thank you for reactivating your account to raise this issue. (P.S. - I note that ArtW has referred to a plan to discredit him by "BlueCalix and his little buddies" [SIC] see: [130] - do you happen to know who my "little buddies" are? I feel like I should let them know about your and ArtW's concerns.) Respectfully - BlueSalix (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
True. Your exact words were: "The misogynistic rape enthusiasts, while unpleasant, never slandered me ... in that they have the edge on him."[131]. BlueSalix (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll note that I was repeating Stalwart111's term for the GamerGate SPAs back to him. And they are indeed less bothersome to deal with. Artw (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Understood. I'm sorry you feel I'm more "bothersome" than "misogynistic rape enthusiasts." While I still don't think that gives you license to refer to me as a "colossal raging asshole" or to delete my arguments in an AfD, I respect our difference of opinion and that we may not always see eye-to-eye. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's the diff on the removed thread [[132]]. It contains next to no policy argument and is nothing that belongs on an AFD page. Artw (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe my post that you deleted - "as an author, subject does not meet our WP:AUTHOR criteria. Subject does not meet GNG. As a journalist, he is a freelancer for a small trade pub. As a businessman he is CEO of what appears to be a one-man company. Journalists will, inherent to their profession, have wide RS due to bylines" [[133]] - is very much a policy argument that belongs on an AfD. In fact, Ad_Orientem even cautioned you on your Talk page regarding your behavior [134] (among others, elsewhere). BlueSalix (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
For the third time, as you were told by no less than three different editors - someone disagreeing with you is not a CIVIL violation. Addressing your repeated concerns, Stalwart11 finally told you: "The only "conspiracy theories" in that AFD discussion are from the same person who made the same outlandish claims at WP:DRV - that a perfectly ordinary deletion discussion (of which there are dozens each day) was somehow an attempt to "censor" the "truth". The proponents of both articles responded with three separate pointy and ironically pointless ANI threads, all of which were quickly shut down, including yours (with some rather appropriate advice, I might add). The suggestion that his [BlueSalix] actions have dissuaded others from contributing is simply false on the face of it" At this point I really don't know what to tell you, man. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone's still interested, BlueSalix and I are carrying on the conversation on his talk page. You may have to go through the history to see our first exchange of views. Susuman77 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(And that isn't the last post, either; there's one from BlueSalix above with a later timestamp.) Please stop. @BlueSalix:, All the little red alert numbers and yellow "new messages" bars are getting frankly irritating. I told you after your first post here that I didn't have time to deal with this; after I said that, you have edited this page 19 more times in a few hours. I mainly blame you, you know, for the storm of alerts I've been getting as I try to deal with a couple of other things around the site; Artw and User:Susuman77 haven't posted as much, and also don't have much choice, since you inhospitably deleted Susuman's post on your page where he said (considerately, I thought) that he wanted to "avoid more back-and-forth at Bishonen's". Anyway, I ask the three of you to find a different venue. (Worm That Turned's page would not be a good idea.) If BS has stopped deleting the posts of others on his page, fine; if not, perhaps one of you other two could undertake to host a discussion? Also, frankly, there seems to be a good deal of repetition in the conversations on both the pages involved. You might save some time by waiting for Worm to comment. Bishonen | talk20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
You are slightly returned to us. Even half a woman is better than know woman at all. Perhaps you can now talk some sense into the sisterhood here! Giano(talk)21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It feels good to be so promptly welcomed! But, my god, sweetheart, it was largely sisterhood-related issues that got me so sour I left. Them and Sandstein. [/me leaves again, this time for good.] Jk, but seriously, no. Bishonen | talk21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
Fear not Mrs Bishonen, I have decided to join the sisterhood of Gender Gap myself. Once I've advised them to discarded their dungarees, perm their hair and put on pretty frocks, they'll find themselves high earning husbands and be as happy as can be. Is there a page where we can sign up, I'm having problems finding it by myself. Oh yes, we need to find poor Mr Sandstein a young lady - that's what he needs. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Good grief. I seem to have wandered into le salon mesdames. Could someone point me to the smoking room and have the footman bring me a brandy and cigar? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you'd be very happy in the Victorian drawing-room on this page. The ambience is snug to a fault, with a smoke-emitting dragon and a richly aromatic Bigfoot in residence. There is no ventilation bar the catflap, and cuban cigars are always on offer. See talkpage. Bishonen | talk19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bish, I wanted to thank you again for helping to keep FGM and the talk page stable. The article made TFA yesterday, and I honestly don't think that would have happened if you hadn't found a way to keep things calm. All the best, Sarah (SV)(talk)04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I missed it on the front page! [Goes to check it out.] Looks great. The credit for that beautiful article is all yours, Slim. Yes, you succeeded in making it beautiful despite the subject. Bishonen | talk14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
Well, you are a tasty bite, even if you're not Danish. Which reminds me, today I was asked in class where I was from. "Dutchland" was proposed. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, froglegs, I thought I'd just leave your semi to run its course. I'm not around that much, and my little friend is an annoyance to the stalkers. Bishonen | talk22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
No, that's fine, thanks, Lugnuts, it's the 1% that's got it right: blocked users don't have to keep up the notice as a mark of shame. The only thing they're not supposed to remove is declined unblock requests plus a couple of odds and ends which don't often come up. In this case, I suppose the user may have regretted his own silly comment, and have chosen to remove the whole issue. That's his right. Compare WP:REMOVED. Bishonen | talk19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
Post-battle carnage from initial skirmish of the First Wiki-Dano-Swedish Danish War of 2015
It's the Scandinavian grudge match we've all been waiting for... Sharpen your kanelstængerkanellängder and lets get ready to settle once and for all who the Supreme Lords of Scandinavian Pastry Trivia truly are.
In my opinion the article should be illustrated with a fair-use image of Princess Leia with a Danish on each ear.[136] Actually I think the phrase was in Spaceballs first. No? Princess Leia in a gold bikini with a Danish on each ear, every teenage boy's dream? Bishonen | talk23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
Or, no… not Spaceballs so much. I was conflating stuff. There was a bit from Friends in there.[137] Man, they have huge Danishes in America! Bishonen | talk23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC).
Ok I see you're in it for the fun of it Peter, and you to Bishonen. I was slightly suspecting that, just from the issue you picked, the lack of insight on the subject and the general rudeness of your comments. Your comments on the specific page and issue cannot be taken seriously from now on.
In addition, I have to say, that this is a really bad administration of your WP-contribution over all. Not only are you wasting peoples time on an issue you don't even care about, you are at the same time making fun of it. I see no other option than labeling your actions as "Wikipedia terrorism" and any further engagement from you on this issue, cannot be taken seriously.
When I find the time, I will report this. Wikipedia should not be a platform for time-wasting pranks and people who are here to contribute in a constructive manner, should not be wasting any time on incidents like this or find themselves ridiculed. RhinoMind (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@RhinoMind:: actual terrorists kill and torture real, innocent people every day. People bemused by the "controversy" over a pastry are not engaging in "Wikipedia terrorism", and saying they are makes you look like someone who has lost their grip on reality. You should remove that slur, and apologize, before people choose to no longer take anything you say seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam No I will not do any of that at all. I even find your comment rude and without any proper empathy for those who are hurt by actions such as this unacceptable behaviour. However, I will gladly discuss with you, what defines "Wikipedia terrorism". It is actions that attacks good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. Often for no reason at all, call them "innocent victims" if you like. It is actions that deliberately scares off good, honest constructive Wikipedia contributors. And it is actions that works "behind the stage", using Wikipedia's own rules and guidelines to make the damage. It is often committed by Wikipedians who knows the ropes of Wikipedia very well. In this case extremely well. As said I will gladly discuss this further with you, you are most welcome. RhinoMind (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You are also welcome to find another term than "Wikipedia terrorism", but this is not just a simple controversy. It is completely unacceptable. RhinoMind (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you've got chutzpah, I'll give you that. Calling people "terrorists" in one breath, and complaining that someone is being rude to you in the next, shows an impressive ability to ignore one's own imperfections. No, I don't think interacting with you further would be of any use whatsoever; you've already provided me with very useful information: the kind of human you are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, everyone calm down. The exchange here is ironic banter. It's a common occurence here on Bishonens talkpage. @RhinoMind:, I apologize if this seemed like I was engaging in provocation for the fun of it. That was not my intention. This was merely a commentary on the irony of two Scandinavians debating the merits of pastry. It was just a way to make fun of my own participation in a heated debate about something relatively innoccouos. Take it as merely fooling around. And please see this as separate from discussion about article content.
Thanks, Floquenbeam. Hallo, RhinoMind. I've seen you around, and wouldn't have expected such a hostile first contact from you. I hope you find the time to report anybody who has offended you in this context — Peter, me, maybe MastCell? He made a joke too. I must say I'd be interested to see it. And I hope you don't mind if I say, in complete seriousness, and please don't take it for "banter", that I especially wouldn't have expected a Dane to take a word like "terrorism" in vain in these distressing times. Bishonen | talk19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
You posed a question as to a possible sock master to Alesgeriy on AN/I, but it was closed before I could find the name. Judging from Alesgeriy's broken English and pro-Turkish bent, it could be EMr_KnG. I'll let you be the judge. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Doug. I wasn't asking you for the sake of your magic CU powers, but because because you blocked Erim Turukku (on behavioral grounds, not for socking) in November 2014, so if you've got the time, maybe you could look to see if Alesgeriy strikes you as the same person. If you haven't, which I would certainly understand, I think I might as well indef them myself. Even if they're not 100% sure a sock of EMr KnG (who is globally blocked, btw), they're definitely a sock of somebody, and somebody not readily distinguishable from EMr KnG / Erim Turukku. Bishonen | talk00:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC).
That's all right, I'll be the Abusive Admin, I know you can't. It must be so dull to be an arb, poor Doug. Say goodbye to all the fun scandal instigation! Bishonen | talk16:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC).
(Adding.) Alesgeiry hasn't edited after the 72-hour block, so maybe the account has been abandoned. Kansas Bear, have you happened to notice a new user editing similar articles, who might be their latest identity? Especially, an account created on or after 9 February? Bishonen | talk17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC).
Thank you, that's very helpful. (But terribly complicated, groan.) I have full-protected Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century for a week because of the edit warring. The IPs 188.158.xx are accusing Mehmeet21 of being the person behind the IPs in the 31.200.0.0/19 range. I'm not sure, as I've seen Mehmeet21 reverting some of those IPs, for instance here. Do you have any comment on that, User:Kansas Bear? I can't say I'm well-informed about the topic. Do the IPs and Mehmeet really have the same POV? And Doug, could you check Mehmeet21 against that IP range, please? I think the indications are strong enough to warrant it. It would feel quite good to block the fortunately not very big 31.200.0.0/19 range if it turns out to be warranted. Those IPs are supposedly static, but he keeps jumping to new ones. Bishonen | talk15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Not warranted. Anything's possible as CU can't determine if it's the same person in 2 different locations using 2 different computers, but CU shows no relationship. Thinking about it now, I probably should have said I wasn't going to do it, because if there was, I couldn't make the link. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but if you found a connection you could have blocked, even if not publish the link, couldn't you? I know that's even more hypothetical. Anyway, I've told all of them, however many they really are, to try to come to consensus on the talkpage. Yeah, that always works with nationalist warriors. Bishonen | talk15:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
(which I think you are supposed to do after 8 indents). I guess I could have blocked, I haven't made a CU block before (ie one giving that as a reason)> Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
In response to Bishonen's question, both the IP and Mehmeet knew about the Xiongu being listed under some obscure article/template as Mongolian.[138][139] Both were intent on having Huns, Xiongnu and Hephthalites listed as Turkic while blantantly ignoring the multiple theories concerning their origins.[140][141] In this case it may just be the same POV not the same person. Mehmeet is in Sweden, I believe.
I noticed a move edit summary of Mehmeett's in Swedish, in fact — made me rub my eyes. I won't ping any more, poor Doug, but if you see this and would like to CU Madyas and the IPs, go ahead. Bishonen | talk19:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
That's quite striking, Rajmaan. I'll sleep on it. You too, Doug? Two of those three are very recent, not sure you saw them when you looked. Do you think it might be reasonable to block both the accounts and the 31.200.xx range per WP:DUCK, as obviously coordinated, whether or not there's actual socking? Answer by e-mail if you like. Bishonen | talk01:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
P. S., Kansas Bear, Madyas has been blocked for a week by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for disruptive editing, not socking. That may be the way to go, since it's quite hard to be sure of the socking issue (I'm pretty sure Madyas has used another account — at least one — but which one?), but those potential sock/meatpuppets are all disruptive in any case. If you should see a new-created account or new IP picking up where Madyas left off, please let me know. And I'm very glad FutPerf has involved himself, he understands these subjects better than I do. (Not much of a compliment for anybody — I should rather say, he understands them.) Bishonen | talk15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC).
The one-week block of Madyas (talk·contribs) seems reasonable. After I was alerted on my talk by 188.158.116.74 (talk·contribs), I have tried talking to Madyas at User talk:Madyas#Complaint about your edits at User talk:EdJohnston. This did not result in any change in his behavior. There may be a question what to do after the one week block expires. If it's too laborious to figure out the socking issues, a straightforward block for disruptive editing or edit warring could be the way to go. The guy has a bee in his bonnet about 'Turkic' and never waits for discussion to end in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Well, it's too laborious for me. Perhaps an SPI is needed after all (groan). Dougweller has it on his list, but he's awfully busy. Who'd be an arb? On the other hand, I agree Madyas is eminently blockable without worrying about whose sock he is. If the one-week block doesn't cool his ardour, I'd be quite prepared to go with indef per NOTHERE and CIR. Bishonen | talk16:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC).
Yeah, I went for "only" the week block because I just couldn't figure out who was supposed to be a sock of who, though I seemed to remember there had been some prior disruption in the area. If anybody points me to a link showing concrete similarities with previous accounts, I'll be happy to indef immediately – or just indef on CIR grounds, as you rightly say. Fut.Perf.☼12:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
My god, yes. Apparently I was so impressed by my feat of closing an AfD (a first for me) that I went straight into self-congratulation mode instead of finishing the job. Thank you very much, TopGun. Bishonen | talk07:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC).
Amazing that you don't know the difference between New York Times and New Yorker (or have any idea what the article said) and yet you were "closing" a discussion. Could you be less full of yourself. Go ahead have me blocked. TyrionLatif (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, the New Yorker, was it? Even less reason to be impressed by that reference, then. If you want to be blocked, you'd better tell me your main account and I'll oblige. (If by now you can even remember your "main" account.) It's hardly worth my trouble to block yet another trolling throwaway sock. Bishonen | talk12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Hello again. It's actually a little too complicated for me. I was hoping I would be able to determine consensus and close the RfC, but it doesn't seem very decisive. I've posted a note on the talkpage, just to warn people that I will protect if there's any more edit warring. Bishonen | talk19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
Well, I stand corrected on the matter of removing active sanctions from talk pages. Since I was sure that had once been a guideline, I had to track down the debate here. Anyhow, thanks for the edification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it comes up every now and then, and at any given time, at least half the people seem to think that policy is as you thought. It's surely a good thing, though, IMO, that people don't have to wear a block notice as a mark of shame, as long as they don't intend to appeal but just to wait it out. It's logical, too: not all admins post a block notice all of the time, so why, randomly, hold the ones that do get posted so sacrosanct? Bishonen | talk19:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC).
(talk page stalker)@Cyphoidbomb: A very recent example here. Because the user blanked the decline and some discussion but did not re-appeal the block, the removal is OK as far as I'm concerned. I assume they're letting their block expire or whatever. They could also have removed the block notice as far as I'm concerned. So long as they don't try to re-appeal, because that would be equivalent to admin shopping. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Ms. Bishonen - I hope you are well. I see from your talk banner, that you've had a wee bout with the yuckies. Hopefully the twins are taking good care of you and getting you back to your ever-cheerful self. *Hugs* from Ched. :-) — Ched : ? 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh heavens. All great respect for the most honorable 'Bish family, but I'd never want to run afoul of Giano and his aunt. (still wondering how ANYONE could forget about the twins though) — Ched : ? 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That may well not have been the best revision to protect on. Administrators don't pick and choose when they protect for edit warring, unless there's obvious vandalism; they're actually not allowed to take sides in a content dispute. It's a pity people on both sides ignored my warning. One way of getting more knowledgeable eyes on the article might be to post on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. If that generates convincing arguments, and thereby a consensus (which doesn't necessarily mean a large majority) I'll certainly unprotect early, and block anybody who edit wars against consensus. Note that a CheckUser, Dougweller, found, above on this page, that that there's no technical connection between Mehmeett21 and the 31.200.xx IPs.[146] Dougweller hasn't replied to socking concerns about Madyas, below in the same thread. He's probably extremely busy (being an arbitrator) — you might get another CU by opening an SPI. Sorry, I realize it's complicated. I'll also keep an eye on the talkpage and see if anybody gives good reason for me to either block or revert. So far nobody has even tried. Bishonen | talk11:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
I am quite a bit busier than I expected to be, as I have ended up being the only drafter on one of the current cases. I hope to get a chance to deal with this and stuff on my talk page, but I don't know when. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@'Shonen: Anything between <noinclude> and </noinclude> only shows up on the template page itself and not on all the pages that make use of the template. We want the lock to show up on the template page of course, but not on all the other pages, so Ricky did right to put the <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{pp-dispute}} that you added. Sadly Twinkle doesn't realise it's a template page and doesn't provide the extra stuff for you. It might also be worth considering that page-protection for templates could be set at the template-editor level, as not all admins might feel comfortable answering edit-requests, but template-editors can't help out if pp is set to "Edit=Allow only administrators". Just a thought. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that was ANI for the Danish pastry. What I don't understand how can the Danish guys - just don't get the fact that other countries also eat "their" pastry. If you go in into virtually ANY Swedish patisserie and confectionery shop - the main pastry they selling it is wienerbröd, you can buy them everywhere and everybody consumes it. It is absolutely THE most popular pastry in Sweden, comparable to the French croissant, or the American cheesecake. Each and every Swede eats it and it is one of the absolute major pastry consumed in this country. Well kanelbulle might compete with it - but nothing else. Absolutely a staple food in Sweden. It is Sweden's national pastry really. And then come theses guys and say - why should we pay attention to this? It is in a way hurting the deepest feelings of every real Swede. And this we are quarreling about, it is just absurd. Incredible. I don't give a damn about patriotism, but this is a thing that is sacred. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Wienerbröd- maybe it should have an own article, yeah, wienerbröd is a red link. Sad that we can't agree about making a single article on the topic, but we can't work together that's plain. I really think we should start an article, it is notable enough. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I bet half of those people eat wienerbröd, wienerbröd is HUGE in Sweden. The most consumed, most popular and best liked pastry that exists in whole Sweden. Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Cute images from Påarp and Sundbyberg, thanks. You don't actually have to go to a konditori, as I'm sure you know — you can buy very nice fresh-baked wienerbröd in Pressbyrån, which says a lot for their popularity. Bishonen | talk19:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
Hafs, I suspect that those ridiculously oversizded muffins might actually be more popular. If only because for 7-11 and other dull established, it's about as difficult as packing a bear turd into paper and blasting in an industry-grade microwave oven it for a few mintes. But in finer konditorier, it's definitely a standard item.
In Sweden there are only a few types of cakes eaten regularely and on a everyday basis and 30-40% of it is precisely this wienerbröd- that is sold and baked - every day.
It is not a periferic thing - it is - one of the most popular cake ever. Each and every caffé has a huge supply of it, and
those people have probably never ever been in Sweden, if they don't understand it, it is just something sacred and big. It is like saying to an English that the Westminster caterdral is of no importance, and Shakespeare is a local
rhymester - poetaster. Hafspajen (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But hey, WHY do we have to write about winerbröd? Everything is DANISH, wienerbröd has never even existed. IT IS ABOUT THE dough. Hafspajen (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there is no other articles on wienerbröd except this. And those guys tried to exterminate the Swedish, Norvegian and Finnish part and go on messing about their own sort of Danish wiener - that is actually more like 5 different types of cakes - very different from the other countries wienerbröd they those guys eat, different from all the rest of Scandinavia - the part that actually doesn't exist even in their mind.
Fika is considered a social institution in Sweden; it means having a break, most often a coffee break, with one's colleagues, friends, date or family. The word fika is both a verb and a noun. Swedes consider having a coffee an important part of the culture. You can fika at work by taking a "coffee break", fika with someone like a "coffee date", or just drink a cup of coffee. As such, the word has quite ambiguous connotations, but almost always includes something to eat, such as biscuits, cakes and even sweets, accompanied with the drink. This practice of taking a break, typically with a cinnamon roll or some biscuits or cookies, or sometimes a smörgås or a fruit on the side, is central to Swedish life, and is regularly enjoyed even by government employees.[1]
AND THUS WIENERBRÖD is a holy sacred institution too, because nobody drinks only the coffe. But coffee AND wienerbröd. So that's it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Not just your day, Hafs. Our day! For on this bleak winter day, the good, honest, humor-loving users of the Nether-Western Territories of Wikipedia rose up, and with one voice cried: "We will stand for this tyranny no more. DELIST!"
Yes, mr Konditoriterrorist, but that's more an appeal to the nominator, isn't it? And they have not responded. So I worry that a literal-minded closer will close as "Delete", because, you know, there's one Delete and zero Keeps. Or, perhaps more likely, that it'll be relisted with the "to generate a more thorough discussion" template thingy. I know, it wouldn't make any sense, but is that any guarantee? Bishonen | talk13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC).
Seriously? Do people actually pull that kind of ruleslawyering shit...?
Crisco 1492 know just about everything about image fixing... maybe, Peter if you ask nicely he can make your semla less yellow. Also, how are you going to get it in the article, that's a mystery. A plain wiener was no good there - a wienersemla will make everybody freak out. I still think you should create a plain wienerbröd article, there is plenty to write about in it. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh. I live near Copenhagen .... just 1 hour from here. I know very well what they do, but they don't seems to know what we do up here in Sweden. Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it's some indeffed user. All I know is they're this range too. I suppose those 3-month blocks have made them realise that IPv6's are quite easy to keep out, so now they've moved on to ordinary old-fashioned IPs. Blocking is more a gesture; we can revert and deny recognition, that's all. Until such time as Wikipedia puts a stop to all IP editing. This guy's disruption is comparatively minor, actually. Bishonen | talk22:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
Bpandey89
Bpandey89 (talk·contribs) seems still to be at it, pushing their POV by synthesising unreliable Raj sources etc at Talk:Bhumihar. You posted a discretionary warnings note on their talk back in September but they are clearly not giving up on it. Is it time for them to be directed away from articles about a caste of which they are a member and towards, say, articles about pastries? - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started writing up a warning to them, to explain that there's a limit even on talkpages, but I have to run now; back in a few hours. Also working on a request for discretionary sanctions for pastry broadly construed. It's really the only thing when you have a hot topic like that. Bishonen | talk12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
Warning placed. Now to the discretionary pastry sanctions, and perhaps a request for a full case to deal with Floquenbeam's abuse of tools on the Danish pastry pages. Bishzilla has what she refers to as "the entire cute little arbitration committee" in her pocket, so there shouldn't be a problem. And Peter, I noticed you drooling over the wienersemla image above (please don't lick my page); don't you think it might be better to stick to subjects that don't excite you quite so much for a few days? Bishonen | talk15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
You mean like sulcus intermammaria? With descriptions of cleavages as "elegantly sloped in alignment with Hippie chic" or "buffed, pumped and engorged" still present I'll have nooo problem.
Thanks, Bish. If ever I get round to working out a lead for User:Sitush/sandbox3, it should go a long way towards resolving queries regarding the Raj census operations. As for pastries, although French rather than Danish, I always liked the dicdef for an éclair: "A cake long in length but short in duration". - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
99% of admins really have no clue whatsoever about caste-related stuff, and lack the initiative, time, intelligence, or desire (or a combination of two or more) to find out. So the approriate rule of thumb that any admin can follow when asked to do admin-y stuff related to Indian castes is "do whatever Sitush says".
This is so obviously the wisest approach that I would normally go ahead and create such a page, but since I'm calling out Sitush by name, I figure that would probably make him a target of some kind, and wouldn't be cool.
I'd recommend creating WP:ERIC for grammar and style questions, WP:MAGGIE for copyright questions, WP:CRISCO for image questions, WP:RAMBLE for In The news questions, etc. etc. I've probably forgotten some obvious ones. Like WP:BRAD for ways to assume more good faith than is warranted, maybe (Aaack! that's a blue link!), or WP:PETER for pastry questions. Most subject areas probably have a go-to person, we should just enshrine them in policy. And use WP:BISH for everything that doesn't have a specific person listed. Unfortunately, WP:FLOQ would really only be useful for questions about being a smartass...
I top-posted this above the stuff from Bpandey below because this is more of a general philosophy of Wikipedia, and (as described above) I have no idea what's going on with this specific conflict. Except that based on past history, Sitush is correct approximately 99.5% of the time in matters like this, and is thus probably correct here as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen , you are telling that i am putting up unreliable source of british raj. you should know that the legends mentioned in article page about babhans have also first appeared in british era and in british document. If you are so sure then please find out any credible text stating such legends or myths, earlier to british era. All those myths originated during british time and spread all over. Babhan word and it's mention in ashokan edicts is not at all propaganda or partial view point. it has never been written or mentioned in wikipedia page. babhan is a pali word found in ashokan edicts.[1] Many of the authors like C. A. Bayly, willium pinch, Susan Bayly,,[2]are not colonial authors whose materials have also been disregard. please go through the citation before commenting on anybody. What ever i have written on the talk page is not at all my view but it is view of the books and documents which i have cited on talk page. One of the author has told that bhumihars were termed as shudra in early british census record like kayasthas led them to form caste movement but none of the british raj census which i have cited have mentioned bhumihar as shudra(please verify it and do not get confused with bhuiyar and bhumihar therefore stick to babhan word). I have always been polite and i do not want to show any kind of disrespect to any human being or even any creature on this planet. Only one request i want to make please go through the citation and talk page before making any view regarding me.
Hi again, Bpandey. Floquenbeam is correct that admins don't know much, especially not in areas like caste. It's not my job to do independent research in the area, or to edit the article. I do have some understanding of policy, though, and I would like you to respond specifically to these 2 questions:
1. Have you clicked on the policy links I gave you and read the policies, at least the first paragraphs of them? If not, why not? If you have read and found them hard to understand, please ask. If you have read and disagree with them, please go away, because the policies are obligatory. They're not suggestions that you can disregard.
2. What's the matter with your sig? Why did it link to your talkpage, before Voceditenore corrected it, and especially, why is the timestamp off by (in my timezone) 5 1/2 hours (plus one month), as the History shows it is?[147] Did you write in the date and time by hand, as they are in your timezone? That would be very confusing; please remember Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and the clocks round the world all show different times. On the other hand, no.. I can't believe it's still January in your timezone! Please let the software handle the signing, by either a) typing 4 tildes ( ~~~~) or b) clicking on the little "your signature with timestamp" icon in the row of icons just above the edit field. Please use one of these methods. Then the timestamp will be adjusted to the person reading, and to all the other timestamps on the page. Or, well, you don't have to respond to this question, it doesn't matter what went wrong; just please read what I say, and follow my instructions for signing.
Finally, though I'm indeed no expert on caste matters, I couldn't help but notice that you refer, above, to a history book from 1916 as your authority. That's obviously ridiculous. Look, I'm only going to say this once more: please listen to Sitush's good advice about reliable sources in this field. Oh, yes, did you read the brief guideline WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which I have already referred you too? Wasting everybody's time is disruptive in itself, if it goes far enough, and you can be blocked for it. Bishonen | talk18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC).
hi Bishonen , it is quite unfortunate that you are diluting the point by circling around the main objective. On talk page if i have made some mistakes in writing a date do not make me a culprit possibly. You have already told that you are not expert in this topic neither do i but my persistent effort to know and collect materials and my research on this topic has made me much aware of this specific caste. what ever i have written is not at all my view point but it is the materials from standard text and renowned historians which i have already cited. I am not at all pushing my viewpoint but i am writing the viewpoint of historians with proper book citation. The communist writer (aswani kumar) has also cited many early 19th century as well as 20 th century literary work. Most of the discoveries regarding ashokan edicts were already done during early 20th century so it is not at all mocking to use the book i have cited above.[1] In wikipedia many of the aspects are taken from a single source ashwani kumar, who is not at all a historian. His book is more focused on the plight of so called Dalits and overemphasized violence of babhans. You can find out many instances opposite happened but merely he has been mentioned such in his entire book. you are alleging me to be biased or pushing some view point but i want always be neural covering all the corners whether it be negative or positive. Sorry for inconvenience which i have made to you but honestly speaking, i have written all this even after going through the policies you gave me to read. I deeply regret that nobody is there to listen neither me nor my citations. Bpandey89 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for imposing this block. As you may have seen from this SPI, I have been harassed relentlessly since the beginning of January. It is a shame it cannot be proved. This is just an FYI, btw, not a request for comment! ~ P-123 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
And thanks for this block too. I had half a mind to ping you about this long-term vandal/POV-pusher (having seen your earlier block of the user), but decided to wait for the next time the IP edited. You saved me the effort! Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, in both cases, though I have a nagging worry about yours, Abecedare, because it's supposed to be dynamic. Maybe 6 months is too much? But it has obviously been used by the same individual for a whole year now. Dynamic schmynamic. Bishonen | talk22:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC).
The same person has clearly made all the edits from that IP since March 2014. So obviously their ISP's DHCP lease period is pretty long and effectively they have a static IP (esp. given that the current user did not/could not change their IP during the previous 2 week block). And in case the IP does transfer to another customer within 6 months, and that customer decides to edit wikipedia and that customer does not have a pre-existing wikipedia account, hopefully they'll ask for an unblock or a chance to create a user account instead of just giving up. Haven't completed the Drake equation style analysis of all that happening, but I'd hazard that the term of your block is quite reasonable. Abecedare (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Just for info, a DHCP client will normally ask for a renewal of the current lease before it expires and the DHCP server will normally re-allocate the same IP address. That's how a dynamic IP address can stay the same over repeated lease periods as long as the client stays connected. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Why was I banned? I wasn't vandalizing the page I was making it look for detailed more accurate as its missing Key information and important facts and material the stuff added by David A. With the theories given aren't in marvel and he is taking real life theories into fiction I was simply being a contributor. Beyonder (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod
You were blocked for edit warring, see this discussion. Also, I read the history of the page, and I'm afraid I agree with Origamite and David A that your changes introduced grammar problems and made the text harder to understand. But that's not the main point: edit warring hurts the project, and persistent edit warring is a blockable offense, whether or not you're right about the content. Please see WP:3RR. I'm sure you're a good-faith editor trying to improve Wikipedia, but edit warring is simply not allowed, and you had been warned about it. Bishonen | talk09:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
There is always a boudoir somewhere
Thank you very much, Hafspajen. I'd like all my amiable talkpage stalkers to come and have tea with me in it. Even so, the one you put in Bishzilla's pocket[148] is unbeatable. Don't you think so, dear Lady Catherine? Bishzilla is pretty good with the taste and elegance, but she'll always defer to your judgement. Bishonen | talk00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
Ah dear, little Mrs Bishonen how sweet of you to invite me to your boudoir. How charming it looks. I always admire those who can do their own upholstery, and I don't agree at all with those who say that shabby chic is passé - anyway that's not really chic is it? It's so nice to see that you've found a fellow Nordic to converse with and lure into your boudoir. Sadly i can't remain to tea with you because between you and me (par devant les servants) Stackars Eric är offer för några hemska kvinnor med millitant attityder. So I have to attend to that. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The IP is absolutely dead wrong! Ms. Dudess, aka Bishonen and her entire entourage, especially Bishzilla, are hereby awarded the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for spreading peace and harmony and bringing light to dark corners of the globe!--MONGO16:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
While noting the obvious errors of even basic facts in the original posters comments, specifically regarding the "only" phrase, I am more than grateful to see that, perhaps, we might have talked Bishzilla into wearing something. Now maybe we can talk her into wearing a little bit more than just the medal? I am reminded of a joke Peter David once wrote about She-Hulk about how the, um, amount of distraction that character supplies can be rather problematic, and that problem tends to increase conversely to the amount of covering worn. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
[Freezingly.] Bishzilla great believer in modest attire. Wear all-over spiderman suit at practically all times. Hope little John Carter not venture hint at occasional private disrobings during moments of sweet dalliance.[149] Would be most tactless and brutish. [With growing indignation.] John Carter offensive masculinist discourse frighten away all of delicate sensibility! No wonder gender gap! [Huffily, Bishzilla unwraps the medal and eats the chocolate. Feels a little better.] Women need chocolate![150]bishzillaROARR!!18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
John Carter little perv who is noted for having, um, fallen in love with Dejah Thoris on first sight, which happens to have been when she was completely unclothed. John Carter also frankly delusional little idiot who seems to think he bounces between planets for no readily understood reason. John Carter will try to remember to take all the prescribed pills on a more regular basis. I sowwy. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Not attribution to me, anyway! It's an internet meme about typical message board interactions. Originally coined of a type of thin-skinned battleship with big guns; I can't find the Wiki article where I read about those ships, but here's a link. Bishonen | talk15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
Hey pal. I need to have the Sony Pictures Entertainment page protected from ongoing vandalism. Certain IP users have been changing the article without giving a certain reason. I already warned two IP users and yet, one user didn't find an article why abbreviations shouldn't be allowed on a Wikipedia article after I notified the user. Perhaps you can help. King Shadeed (talk) 11:44, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, King, I don't mean to go bureaucratic on your ass, but you'd better take it to WP:RFPP. I just don't understand the subject well enough to make head or tail of the issues. Bishonen | talk16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
(Oops, tripped on my DSL cable again! Ughh, I need a longer one and to route it differently!)
Dear sister Bishonen, the "king" is just whining because he errantly thinks that if someone removes his "precious" abbreviations as a way of cleaning up some clutter, it's supposedly "vandalism," even though it really isn't. He says he wrote that article, so perhaps a good lesson in WP:OWN would suit him.
Hallo Bishonen, Alessandro writing! No, don`t worry, it is not because of what you are thinking that I am coming here :-) Some months ago there was a flood of edits on many nation articles (also Switzerland :-))), which were spammed with info about slavery on their territories. The problem is that the used data are highly controversial, since they come from a private foundation, the Walk Free Foundation which, according to its critics, used questionable methods to generate them. This led to the block of users (see for example here). Now, since a couple of weeks, the whole story started again (on Uzbekistan, Haiti, and a few other articles), this time pushed by user User:3rdWorldkid (another sockpuppet?). I reverted its edits and left a message on its talk page, but I don`t know how the thing is going to evolve, so it would be good if you could take a look on it. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Alex! If they persist after your warning, I think we need another ANI. The previous one was a little inconclusive,[151] with nothing decided about Walk Free. Perhaps the WF foundation needs adding to the spam blacklist after all. You notice that 3rdWorldkid took part in that discussion, so they're supposedly aware of the issues. Lying low for a while and then starting up again is not cool. (I see Zarcusian reinserted the text at Uzbekistan, too, probably in good faith, as an IP had reverted 3rdWorldkid without an edit summary.) Bishonen | talk09:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks! As detective, you are better than Montalbano... :-) I could not find this ANI. Yes, I will start another ANI if it will be the case. Unfortunately the scheme is always the same: someone takes a real issue, creates a subjective ranking about it, and this becomes a world standard...THe NZZ wrote a great article about this mania (or business?) some months ago, but who reads a Swiss newspaper? :-). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
[With false modesty:] I just came across it in 3rdWorldkid's contributions. As a thankyou for the compliment, I've removed the silly "Camilleri is an atheist" in Andrea Camilleri. Check out the source given for it..! The category is for public, militant atheists. Dawkins is an atheist in that sense, yes, Penn Jilette is an atheist, but Camilleri? Who are the religious categorisers who keep teasing out private half-acknowledgements and add that stuff? Probably just nerdy gnomes who think they've found a corner where they can "help Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk13:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
Baciamo le maniDonna Bisciona :-) I am glad that you know Camilleri too. He is a wonderful writer, and his first four Montalbano books are real little jewels, giving an insight of Sicily and the Sicilians (the RAI Montalbano serie is also very nice). About the index, the 3rd world guy answered here: from his answer it looks like he is working for this organisation. I read the critical paper about this index, and after that I think that the related article should be deleted. For the moment, I added a referenced "Controversy" paragraph. Salutammo Donna Bisciò :-) Don Alex2006 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a rather unclear answer, isn't it — maybe a language problem. "I have the feeling they have selected me"? Perhaps he means rather that he feels chosen to do this. "I am in sympathy with their cause" doesn't sound exactly like he works for them, either. I dunno. Good controversy section! Bishonen | talk09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
In German there is a good adjective for this: "auserwählt", that is "the chosen one", "the elect". I also think that he feels himself called to fulfill this mission...Let's hope for the best, since I could cite a couple of cases in history where this kind of "call" brought (and still brings) several problems to the mankind. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea there ever was such a page! It's a very good idea to revive it, and I'll sign, sure, but I think there should be a bit of discussion on talk first. For instance, I wouldn't want it to be a policy proposal (that just seems cumbersome, because no such policy is needed today), but more of an info page. I'll comment on talk, but wouldn't you like to post there yourself first, to kick off, SD0001? The last post right now is from 2013. Bishonen | talk15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I understood where you wanted me to sign, but, as I said, I think there should be a discussion about the status of the page first. I mean, I don't want to sign a proposal for a new policy, as I'm not in favor of such a proposal. Bishonen | talk16:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
Two IPs harassing my talk page
Hey. I don't mean to bother you, but I need two IPs blocked from harassing me on my talk page, saying I vandalized the Sony Pictures Entertainment page. They are: 75.162.207.17 and 75.169.16.76. It appears to be the same person. King Shadeed (talk) 11:30, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
They are the same person, just as this one is. I accidentally tripped over the too-short cord that connects my internet router to the service jack, and that changed the address. I need to get a longer cord!
But, Bishonen, you just cater to this hypocrite as if it's "okay" for him to falsely accuse someone of "vandalize" his page just because they put a warning on his page, even though that is the exact thing he did to their page! Don't give in to these spurious requests so easily, please.
Plus, he has a bad habit of trying to WP:OWN articles just because he wrote them. Please do something to curb this nonsense.
Users can remove what they like from their own talkpages and you don't get to restore the removed post. Doing so is harassment, and no, it's not allowed and is certainly not "the exact thing he did to your pages: he warned you once, as is reasonable. Please don't make it a virtue that you make extra trouble for you opponent by flitting from IP to IP, making extra talkpages that need to be warned. That may not be your fault, but it's not KS's fault either is it? And you, not he, have the remedy: If you want to take responsibility for your own edits, and give other editors a chance to have one user talk to discuss on, there's nothing to stop you from creating an account. Don't restore removed usertalk comments again or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk04:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
Okay hold up. Was THAT for me?? If so, I get warned by an IP user that's using multiple IDs by not looking up reliable sources or taking it to the talk page and I get blamed??? That doesn't sound right. He didn't take it to the Talk page on the SPE NOR SPT page, but I did on the latter name. Whoever that IP user is for using multiple IPs is doing is creating an edit war with ME so that I would get in trouble!! And whoever that user is that is using the same IP that starts off with "75" needs to be investigated. King Shadeed 01:19, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
I believe Bish is on your side here, Shadeed. I might have obscured that with my comment, though. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to trivialize the pointless talk page violations by the IP-user. I just wanted to note that short personal messages are usually better than templates in these kind of situations.
King Shadeed, not sure you're talking to me, but for my part I wasn't blaming you for anything. Do you flit from IP to IP? Do you need to create an account? No. My comment was for 75.162.181.141, 75.162.207.17, 75.162.203.151 and 75.169.16.76 (=all one person, which they don't deny). They restored removed comments at your talkpage, which is harassment, and that's why I protected your page against harassment. I'd quite like to block them, but it's pointless with IPs that change with every post. I can't investigate who is using the IPs, I don't have the tools for it. Checkusers can't do that kind of investigation either. Bishonen | talk09:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
I was just making sure. I was confused. All's forgiven though. I was like "Hold up! What did I do??" But thanks fellas, I appreciate your help. And Bishonen? Sorry about annoying you or something of another. I was trying to find an administrator to help me out whenever something turn into a mess. I mean I LIKE editing here! I've been here since '06. Though, I still got a lot to learn here, heh-heh! And Peter? Thanks for your help too. King Shadeed | Talk 11:58, March 3, 2015 (UTC)
Bish, by "the exact thing," I didn't mean the restoration. I meant just posting the warning in the first place. I wasn't thinking about the other thing. Even if I managed not to trip on my cord (really gotta get a long cord and reroute it--and not accidentally break the little tab on the plug that helps keep it plugged in!), there would be no point in blocking me, because just doing what I've done with this so far isn't really block-worthy. Okay, I know you're an admin. and shadeed and I are not (although he acts like he thinks he is), but that really doesn't seem like something a person should be blocked for.
And no, Peter and Bish, I'm not making it a virtue that I... blah, blah, blahh.... I wasn't even thinking about doing that... but hey, thanks for the idea that I could use down the road! Anyway, I'm not making up the tripping thing as a kind of convenient ruse for trying to make reverting look like it's being done by different people so that shad will look like the one who should be in trouble. I wouldn't even have known that I could change my IP address that easily had it not been for that tripping (the first one being a long time ago), so I wouldn't have thought of that for just faking him out. But no, I didn't trip the cord out after every posting.
Oh, but thanks, Pete, for agreeing that calling the removal of an abbreviation shouldn't be labeled as "vandalism." And Bish, shad was already falsely accusing me of "vandalizing" on his talk page before I reposted the warning. So I was like, "Oh, really? So just every posting you disagree with is 'vandalism'? Grow a bit of skin!"
Besides though, guys, if one user is warring with another, then that other is warring too! It's not a one-way road!
Even then, what about shad's articles with all of these abbreviations just to have abbreviations on them? Are those so important? If so, why? For example, why is it "so important" to clutter up the lede of something like One Magnificent Morning and Sony Pictures Entertainment, etc. that they must be protected for *any* length of time?
Uh, let's get something straight here, whoever you are, I didn't falsely accuse you. You DID what you DID. End of discussion. Have a nice day. King Shadeed | Talk 20:01, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
They're pretty intent on removing anything negative on their talkpage. I think we may as well not get too freaked-up about it, but if they attack then an eventual ANI may be appropiate. Or not. You're the sysop! —George8211 / T21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
They can remove whatever they like on their own page, but if there are any more edit summaries like that, or other further disruption, I will be the sysop, don't worry. (If I'm awake. Bedtime is approaching in this timezone.) Bishonen | talk21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for the notification, EvergreenFir. I've removed the strange copypaste from the Reliable sources noticeboard, but no, I won't revoke tpa as yet. I don't believe in doing that just because they're claiming they're right and everybody else is wrong. A blocked user is allowed to vent, as far as I'm concerned. Bishonen | talk23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC).
I wonder, it this [153] a personal attack? I think so, and I would like to remove it, but, well, I don't usually mess with others' talk pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, please leave it, Dbrodbeck. I blocked them, I have no problem with a little abuse, as long as it's only directed at me. People don't like being blocked, it's human. I've replied, though (after some hesitation) and I've also revoked tpa — not for attacking me, but for re-inserting crap that I had removed once. Bishonen | talk14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
indeffed for multiple reasons. I removed both the forged Bishonen sig and the "sock template". (why does such silliness always seem to find you Bishonen? Perhaps the "gif" on your edit page? .. :)) — Ched : ? 06:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Giano and Bishonen, portrait of a friendship! A just and profound picture of a somewhat unequal relationship! Bishonen | talk15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
What a charming picture of my nephew; he used to look so lovely at that age in his little sailor suit; he's still so very angelic. Now, I can't stop here gossiping to you - I'll be late for my Swedish class so it's "Jag har en gul smörgås i min barnvagn" for now. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
DS notice
Hi Bishonen, would you consider putting a discretionary sanctions notice on J. Scott Armstrong pursuant to WP:ARBCC? While Armstrong is a marketing professor, a substantial part of his notability arises from his criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, his offering of what he views as a wager on climate change, and other activities related to climate change. If I should be asking somewhere else (maybe WP:AE?) just tell me off. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't in the Climate change category; I'm trying to figure out if it would fall under those sanctions. The principle is apparently the same as for WP:TBAN. Check it out: only climate-change related parts of the page would fall under the sanctions. Thinking about it. My god, I hope it won't take a clarification request. (I'm dead.) Talkpage stalkers? Please? Bishonen | talk10:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC).
Wow, useful.. or, well, that one doesn't have a talkpage template or alert code or such-like, does it, Salvio? I don't see one. So how am I supposed to alert people they might fall under it? We're always being told it's important to use the correct early warning system before sanctioning somebody per discretionary sanctions. Yet another DS headscratcher. Bishonen | talk11:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC).
Cool, thanks very much. OK, Boris, I've added a couple of templates to the article talkpage, with a note about how the CC sanctions apply only partially. I guess it's all more of a formality, as it would be an unusual editor who read all that stuff at the top. There's a forest of it. Anyway, now you or anybody can add user alerts using {{subst:alert|cc}} and so on, if there should be reason to. Bishonen | talk12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC).
This from QuackGuru was horrible. I don't know how much experience you have with disability, but to those of us who do, it's awful, and User:John is 100% right that it's blockworthy -- for anyone, and certainly someone who should know better given a block log and much experience. My initial reaction at ANI was overly hot and ABF, and I struck it and am sorry. My revised comments are here under "Support block per John".
P.S. Just read article on your username-sake; was surprised it didn't have more art.... here's a start at least. [154] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What exactly did you want 'Shonen to reconsider? Sanctioning QG, instead of warning him? You're really not the most uninvolved editor to be going around trying to sweet-talk admins into getting rid of your opponents for you. You might note that striking a comment implies disavowing it. You didn't strike your comment, but merely hatted it, implying you downgraded its relevance, but stood by it. If you really are sorry about your overly hot reaction, then actually strike the comment. Folks might be tempted to take your contrition more seriously then. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. Yes, by hatting, I was indeed intending to disavow the whole thing, so now have struck as well. Otherwise, my (non-struck) comments at ANI speak for themselves: this, and this too. And right now am feeling about as disinclined to "sweet talk" as I can remember ever feeling on WP, so kindly spare me any pokes, veiled or not. Thanks! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 02:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Middle 8. I'm not changing my opinion about a warning being the best action, and I was rather glad to see Kevin Gorman deferred to my call and thus didn't block directly. But of course I won't object to a block if consensus develops for it. I note, though, that A1candidate and you, who are both agitating for a block, have previously shown your interest in getting rid of QG on the alt med articles. Perhaps not because he pushes back against your POV there, but, well, the agitation coincides with the fact that he does push back. Bishonen | talk10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
I know you've struck out your sentences about my callousness and nauseating hypocrisy on ANI, but it still seems a little soon to be making nice about bishōnen just 12 hours later, here on my page. It strikes my ear hollowly. Bishonen | talk10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
Yes, I can see how you might imagine I was trying to "make nice" by pretending to have an interest in Bishōnen, but actually I'd recently watched the (extremely creepy) documentary Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys, and found the former to be an interesting contrast. And that actor whose photo I added, Björn Andrésen, really does have quite a striking face, like a Greek statue, just as the novel said.
The stuff I wrote (and later struck) was mainly aimed at editors generally failing to understand disability and showing double standards, and were written while I was furious about QG's attack. Being accused of lying about one's disability is especially offensive, moreso than being accused of lying about other stuff. Grokking this is part of disability awareness and I don't see much disability awareness in that ANI thread. Nothing new there; it always takes time to appreciate how things look to a disadvantaged minority. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Just want to add, FWIW, I know you're cynical about my motivation and probably think I'm a CPUSHer, but it's not because of QG's content preferences that I've supported sanctioning him in the past. It's his methods, which (per many editors) include a facto IDHT. In this case the reasons I supported a block were the severity of the offense (cf. #3 under WP:BLOCKDETERRENT) and, cf. #2, because QG's been warned a lot lately [155] and will probably just keep pushing the envelope.
I wonder why you didn't wait to let another admin do the block that User:John asked for, and which Kevin Gorman said he would have enacted? Was it important to you that QG not be blocked? If so why? He's been warned now five times in three months. Failure to use stick where carrot won't work to spur a course correction does nobody any favors. This is true even if it's unseemly for me to point it out. Which I'm done doing for now... --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I did want to get my opinion in before somebody blocked, yes, you're quite right. Not to prevent anybody from blocking, of course — I couldn't — and I rather expected somebody to do it in any case. But if somebody chooses to defer to me, that's up to them, and surely it must mean that they didn't feel strongly about blocking, which is their affair (Kevin's affair in this case). You know what, User:Middle 8? I agree QG is a rude insensitive bastard. I'm just not one to block for rudeness, much. Those blocks seldom do any good. In my opinion. Bishonen | talk18:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen, I see where you're coming from. Turns out my ABF-ish tantrum was completely off-base with respect to your views; sorry again for that. Interesting, your observations with blocks for rudeness; I wouldn't have guessed but at same time am not surprised. BTW I forgot to mention in above comment that I wasn't any longer wheedling for you to reconside, just explaining my take/motives. Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW/FWIW, I changed my !vote to say "Don't block QuackGuru this time but do insta-block anyone who questions anyone's disability in the future". The less I say about sanctioning QuackGuru the better (both for drama and, ironically, the likelihood of a sanction if deserved). For example, had I been wise enough not to open RfC#2 on QuackGuru, Guy's AN thread likely would have resulted in at least the impetus for some sort of behavior-change. Wu wei and all that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Hello, I do not believe we have crossed paths before, and I'm writing on your talk page only because I've been pinged in a comment above and we're both involved in a dispute regarding QuackGuru. I think these disputes could be quickly resolved as long as as there is honest and direct communication between both parties. Therefore, what I would like you to do, is to clarify your comment about me so that I could understand the context behind it.
This is important because you appear to have implied that I had shown an interest in getting rid of QuackGuru on the alt med articles in the past, but I must point out that merely presenting diffs of an editor's misbehavior is not equivalent to showing a desire to get rid of them. Up till now, I have never asked for QuackGuru to be blocked or banned anywhere in Wikipedia because I do not believe in enforcing such forms of serious restrictions without a good reason. Perhaps I do not have a strong memory and I may have forgotten where I have done so. In that case, could you remind me of where I had "shown my interest in getting rid of QG on the alt med articles"?
I am confident that you will respond to my request for clarification to avoid a misunderstanding and give me the answers that I respectfully seek. Thank you. -A1candidate 16:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think 'Shonen may have been confusing you with the editor who filed
or perhaps this one "... recommend that QuackGuru be given a lengthy topic ban on all articles relating to pseudoscience and/or alternative medicine, broadly construed" at:
No doubt once she's realised you've "never asked for QuackGuru to be blocked or banned anywhere in Wikipedia", she'll get back to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Back when I last checked WP:MOS (or something similar), there was, I believe, a mention of the ability of an article creator or a Wikiproject (or both, or similar) to disallow (or at least discourage) the later addition of Template:Infobox person and the like: clutter that may well help the reader of bios of footballers, "Playmates" and the like but that for more substantial people merely duplicates, emphasizes trivia, grotesquely simplifies ("known for"), and in other ways dumbs down the resulting article. Now that I look for it again, I can't see it. Did I merely imagine this permission, or is it alive and lurking somewhere I haven't thought of, or have the forces of dumbitude prevailed and disposed of it? -- Hoary (talk)
(watching) I believe that it is a myth. Nobody here can "allow" or not allow anything in a collaborative project that anybody can edit. Some people love bollox, some hate it, I find it useful. When someone who hates it removes one, added by a new user (who is ignorant to love and hate and the complexity of the situation) to an article of someone who loves it but is not permitted to add one, by the power of arbcom (yes, that can happen in a collaborative project that anybody can edit) we reach the farce of a farce ;) - In case you remember that there was something about classical composers, read the projects recent friendly discussions, - but better listen to music by Handel ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Senpai, I haven't seen that, but then I've never taken part in the infobox wars. (They're called bollox now, really, Gerda, and by you? Interesting.) Could some other tps who knows about this perhaps-MOS thing weigh in as well (no disrespect, Gerda) — Giano, RexxS? Bishonen | talk10:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
The actual policy (reaffirmed by Arbcom in 2013) is The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Individual editors and individual Wikiprojects are expressly forbidden from announcing that all of "their" articles should or should not have an infobox, although in some fields (most noisily classical composers) there's a broad consensus that infoboxes in their current form are unhelpful, while in stat-heavy fields like sporting biographies there's an equally firm consensus that an infobox should be included unless there's a good reason to leave it out.
Certain editors, on the other hand, are specifically barred from adding or removing infoboxes, to try to put on a lid on the tendency of infobox skirmishes to escalate into full-blown shouting matches. – iridescent11:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, all. Of course nobody "owns" anything ... except that in a very few ways they do, in effect, do just this. Try the series of (infobollox-irrelevant) edits starting here, their summaries, and the talk page: as we see, the creator of an article can fix its spelling and date order in perpetuity. My inner autocrat would like to create articles with no bio-infoboxes and have them stay that way, but I suppose the only chance for this is to have the relevant WikiProject agree that the things aren't necessary; and unfortunately this WikiProject is moribund. I suppose I should be grateful that most of what interests me is of no interest to popular culture, so I don't have to worry about additions of tidbits about "references" within Grand Theft Simpsons or whatever it is. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, nobody needs to argue for the addition of a bio infobox, let alone get "consensus" for it; whereas somebody wanting to get rid of one that's just been added is likely to be charged with vandalism, attempted "ownership", or mere perversity. Thus there's a systemic bias toward the addition of the things. I suppose that sooner or later a policy will be dreamt up to formalize this. ¶ As a ferinstance, how's the triviainfo collection at the top right of "Robert Doisneau"? (For me, if it's tolerable, this is thanks to the way the gravediggerese term "resting place" turns the whole thing into a joke.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you understand it wrong. Anybody daring to add an infobox to a whole swathe of articles owned by a small group will immediately be reverted and told that a Wikiproject has decided that these sort of articles won't have infoboxes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_van_Beethoven&diff=636026932&oldid=635894308 for a classic example of a new editor being bitten and fobbed off (the inline comment is the Wikiproject's decision and the talkpage archives don't show anything of the sort). On the other hand, a group of anti-infoboxers are able to remove infoboxes from articles that have had them for years - some of which even appeared as Today's Featured Article with the infobox - with no more justification than "I don't like it". For example:
and so on. Check the edit summaries. So why not actually take a look at what's happening before expounding your prejudices? --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've never taken part in the infobox wars. The not taking part in them is one of my favorite parts of Wikipedia, so please take this elsewhere. Bishonen | talk17:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
I hope it's not saying too much that I mentioned on AE that I envy you a bit for that ;) - holder of the Nightingale Award --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:-) I've just looked at yours, with the idea of editing it (of course) and it's… lapidary. I tried to think of a good quote for it, but no, never when you need one, you know?
A propos of your comment about notifications ("talk page edits --> orange notification; user page edits --> maybe a watchlist notification"), yes, "maybe" with bells on, that's right. I don't get any kind of notification when my userpage is changed, as it is occasionally by vandals. It's well watched by others, so it doesn't matter much, but WTF? It's on my watchlist, of course — or, apparently it isn't, but I've put it on my watchlist, and the top link says "unwatch", not "watch". I tell you this because you're a technical guy. Can you understand it, and is there anything to be done about it? (Don't say "unwatch it and then re-watch", I've tried that. It helps for a day or so, then it backslides.) The rest of my watchlist appears to work perfectly. Bishonen | talk23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
That Duck you spotted on the GM Streetcar conspiracy page....
...appears to have new ducklings, complete with similar geographic sources.16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)
Thanks for looking at this. What happens to the work of someone who forgot to sign in? Is it saved in some kind of WikiLimbo, or does the editor have to copy it themselves, and save it elsewhere? One of the better contributors often shows up as an IP, another, who I disagree vehemently with, but is not a vandal or a troll, does occasionally...and, truth be told, I have myself once or twice. Just wondering if the baby can be kept as the bathwater is drained, IOW.Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean the disruptive IPs? Maybe they're Spearmind's ducklings, it looks likely enough, but no Checkuser is going to confirm it, for privacy reasons. (The duck I spotted has been confirmed, though, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spearmind.) The simplest way of dealing with IP disruption is semiprotection, which I've just done at that article. Unfortunately, semi means good-faith IPs can't edit the article either. They'll have to either make requests on the talkpage, or create an account.
For your other question: everybody's work is saved in eternity on Wikipedia, whether contributed by an account or an IP. You can see all the versions and all the edits under the "history" tab. See Help:Page history for the details. Anybody can copy whatever they like from the history. WikiLimbo works! :-) The rare exception is where something was abusive or illegal and has actually been removed from the database. Of course, feel free to copy whichever part of this you like to the article talkpage. Though perhaps a link would serve? Indeed, link to my page in any case, if you quote me; you should always show where something comes from. Happy editing! Bishonen | talk18:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
Isn't the frog cool? The long, calm, efficient classic leg strokes? Almost as cool as my Laurel and Hardy. I did think of creating an edit notice for your talk and putting the swimmer there instead. I love gifs, what can I say. Have you sen the blinking Bishzilla? Bishonen | talk00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC).
LOL Bishzilla! But then if I use that GIF I won't be a free range frog anymore. I'll be a... floundering frog. A wet Βάτραχο! Instead of Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! I'll just go glug glug glug§FreeRangeFrogcroak00:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I will never be an admin again, and I have been a former admin longer than most admins have been admins(!) I was wondering if its okay if I call myself a "Defrocked Admin Emeritus"? I mean, can't I have some sort of nonoffical designation???--MONGO13:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Defrocked Admin Emeritus has a great ring to it! But if you take it apart, you aren't one. "X emeritus" means "retired eminent X". E g, Newyorkbrad is an arbitrator emeritus. But for you to be a defrocked admin emeritus, you'd have to become an admin again. Then you'd be the emeritus of a defrocked admin — a retiree as a former admin. Get it? And you're not, you remain a defrocked admin. Not retired in your quality of former admin. How about… hmm. Perhaps you could have a cool userbox on your page about being the most senior/eminent defrocked admin? I believe Darwinbish may have something pending. Bishonen | talk17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC).
But I am an expert as far as being defrocked! This sucks! Arbcom kind of sort of retired me so...while not voluntary not all retirements are! MONGO sad...may have request pocketing shortly.--MONGO18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
MONGO impressed fine likeness of dreaded Zilla adorns many pages. It is a most cromulent usage of likeness I must say.--MONGO18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice(pictured) declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"? - Can artists around here make that a nice compact quotable template, to use in those moments of suffering in great need? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of events, but I will remove the Dunham page from my watchlist. Could you just answer my last question on the Dunham talk page? Thanks. Quis separabit?19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It hadn't occurred to me that an individual person, except in cases like Ronald Reagan or Hitler or George Washington or Francis of Assisi or Henry VIII, could be a topic. Live and learn. Quis separabit?19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if you would be willing to look through a thread at AN with an eye on closing it. It's not without controversy, and no matter how it closes, someone on one side or the other will disagree. One reason I ask you is that I consider you very well separated from US/American politics, and hoped all those involved would consider your view as objective. The thread is here
The thread is a month old, with it's parent thread dating back to mid-January. I suspect there will be further discussions at some other venue, but I think the AN part has run its course. If you'd rather not, I fully understand, and won't be concerned in the least - but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask. Thank you. — Ched : ? 02:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm working on it, Ched; I acknowledge that I'm sufficiently ignorant of American politics to be a suitable closer. I think I've found a Gordian knot solution that'll annoy both sides, :-) but I need to write it up carefully. Later. Bishonen | talk13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
I thank you most kindly. You've now earned "1 Ched Credit". Copy-edit an article? Research a food? Block a troll? Whatever your favor, I shall do my best. :) — Ched : ? 14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Done, see what you think, Ched. Theoretically, I think my Third Way is brilliant, it's just that I really doubt people will be interested enough to read the article and opine, even the people who have been complaining bitterly about not getting to do just that. Will they even notice? Perhaps I ought to alert everybody who has posted in the thread. Oh groan. I mean, I or somebody ought perhaps to alert them. Hey, can I use my 1 Ched Credit for that, huh? Bishonen | talk15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
I think it's absolutely amazing. Thank you so very much. I have some real-life things to attend to right now, but I will indeed notify everyone involved. It's clear that you spent a great deal of time. thought, and effort at my request, and for that I am grateful. You now have plenty of "Ched Credits" in the bank now to spend at your leisure. :) Thanks Bishonen. — Ched : ? 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, little Aunva, long time! Both useful redirects, and I've just created a third, that we need even more: Aeon Of Strife as a redirect to ANI. Seriously, why not just re-redirect the less germane one — no need to delete either, as both spellings are plausible. Bishonen | talk11:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
At some point during this long trainwreck I must have participated, since the main Kirby Delauter is on my watchlist and I noticed your changes, but unfortunately due to the short-sighted ignorance of Arbcom, I am at present unable to participate in "admin noticeboards, broadly construed". So between that and the opinion that article deletion really isn't a WP:AN purview, would it maybe be better to send it to a proper AfD? Tarc (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have laid out my reasons for not doing so in my comment on AN. I'm sorry you can't participate. But I can't say I give a crap about the "purview" thing. Let some other admin do better if they can, my "AN AfD" isn't set in stone. (I say "admin" because they'd need to revert some of my admin actions at the article itself.) Bishonen | talk19:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
Well, I guess we'll see what happens. If this informal discussion somehow results in an article restoration, I can always AfD it. :) Tarc (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone who has more time please step in and deal with this? I've tried explaining that the old DNB (from 1887!) just isn't going to trump more modern sources (especially when those modern sources know about the old DNB!) but it's starting to eat up an insane amount of my (limited) wiki time. Sounds like a job for an admin to me... Ealdgyth - Talk13:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And now it's getting worse. Great. It's situations like this that drive me away from Wikipedia. Please someone actually try to talk to this new editor ... or is it that it's more important that they not get discouraged and some older editor be driven away? Ealdgyth - Talk14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Except for now using a modern day video of an Anglican enthronement to try to say that "received" would be the same as "enthronement"...Ealdgyth - Talk20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is that a sigh of regret, little Less? Do you miss us? What'll you take to return to us? I'll get up a collection among the socks if you're at all persuadable. You're greatly missed. Percy Bish Shelley (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC).
The *sigh* is that the barb remains, for all that the wound had appeared to have healed. It is people, not places, that have me hooked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Getting attacked on my talk page again.
Hey. Sorry to bother you again. Well, the same user who keeps using multiple IPs is at it again. See my talk page history for details. Plus, when the user used a different IP as "71.219.22.154", he made his disruptive edits on Sony Pictures Television, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and CBS Television Distribution and Trivialist got on him about his edits when we discussed this at the Sony Pictures Television talk page and we warned him about his disruptive editing. He did the same thing two weeks ago after we've had this discussion, but he ignored this. I don't know why this user is so desperate to get me blocked. King Shadeed (Talk) 13:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
Right. I've blocked them for three months this time, and protected your talk for the same period. OK? It's a pity to have to shut out all IPs, but what can you do. Let me know if you're not happy about the protection. Bishonen | talk00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks again. I think I should take a month's break off from all of that chaos I've been going through here. Yet alone with the personal and family issues. King Shadeed (Talk) 21:20, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
Uh, actually no, it was not ignored, and it was not "disruptive." After the Trivialist went back and explained that she/he removed the abbreviations from the leads of articles where the abbreviations weren't used again, that user posted edit-summaries (I guess using dummy edits) showing that he/she agreed that those removals made sense for those. I'm assuming that was an attempt to show cooperation.
Plus, apparently shadeed ignores the repeated explanations this user has given for why the IP address has changed sometimes. Based on what I've read, even this user hasn't always caused her or his changes of IP address. Shadeed needs to pay better attention to this, but is obviously refusing to despite that the explanations are in his face.
I don't care if you're causing the IP changes or not; you're in any case using them to your advantage, by continuing to edit even though you're blocked. If you didn't know your previous IP is blocked, you do now, because Geraldo told you on your page. A block applies (of course) to the person, not a particular IP or account. You're not allowed to post when you're blocked. And yet you do, here on my page. I have blocked you and another clutch of static IPs (hmmm) on the same range for three months for block evasion. Now let's see you manage to "accidentally" change your IP so far as to be out of the range. You know what you should do, if you think you have a real case for being allowed to edit Wikipedia? Don't argue here, but ask for block review on the talkpage of your account, which has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Per the instructions on that page, use WP:UTRS and explain to them about how all your problems have been caused by abusive admins. Block evasion is not the answer. As long as you keep that up, I'll block you wherever I see you. Bishonen | talk06:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. Blocked. Of course the world is full of open proxies. Is there any article you think it would be useful to semi? Bishonen | talk22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC).
Probably wouldn't help, unfortunately. I'm sure if you protected any articles, they would just find other articles to make the same kind of edits. Trivialist (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Does this user PeterTheFourth(talk·contribs·central auth·count·email) pass the alternate account smell test? I noticed single topic area and contributions immediately to noticeboards. Seems to have unusual grasp on policy with extreme though misguided confidence. Considering the topic area.... Would you think it unreasonable if I were to ask this editor to use his main account for noticeboards? MastCell invited to look per EncyclopediaBob logic. --DHeyward (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It's an SPA that was obviously already experienced in the ways of Wikipedia when they started editing the GG case in December. That was pointed out by Ryūlóng in the workshop just a couple of days into Peter's editing, on a list of "accounts that made their first ever contribution to Wikipedia concerning the Gamergate controversy (interpretted broadly), advocated for Gamergate, and made little to no edits outside of the subject area". To my sense, it's a little late to challenge them now, and it's also not really worth challenging such cases unless they're being disruptive. I have a little trouble checking whether they've been instigating litigation, being belligerent, etc, as there are so many contributions. Have you got anything like that to point to, DH? The few edits I clicked on at random were civil and reasonable. Or anything that looks like they've got more than one account editing GG? Bishonen | talk09:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC).
No, just the amount of AE contributions. He's not disruptive on the article space (at least conforms to the letter of the rules if not the spirit). I didn't know if such accounts were allowed to contribute in the Wikipedia space like AE/ARCA/etc. My sense is he's what I call a "bomb thrower." --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, I might say the same for your bizarre and baseless allegations that I have "wikistalked" DHeyward and that PeterTheFourth is my "ally against DHeyward." I have had no communications whatsoever with PeterTheFourth. His only interaction here has been to remind you that making unsupported personal comments about other editors is frowned upon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Oddly if one pulls my right index finger I toot and if you pull my left index finger I burp. It's the oddest thing really. You managed to pull both at the same time....something is rotten in the state of Denmark.--MONGO01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You want the diffs? You showed up there to revert him out of the blue then here. Many a man has more hair than wit.--MONGO01:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This needs to stop. Follow a person to a page or two is not wikistalking. See this interaction analysis. That said, MONGO, you are continuing to make accusation without evidence not just here by on Jimbo's page as well. This follows from your comments on Talk:Robert Hagan yesterday. IMHO, it needs to stop immediately. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect...you showed up out of the blue at American Sniper to revert DHeyward and pick a fight. He and I have worked on that article for months. Maybe you had previously edited it I dint know or care, but you them engaged in an edit war. DHeyward posted here and both he and I do that frequently... I do not see you here much of ever. That is wikistalking NBSB. The sad thing is that behind the scenes both DHeyward and I have lamented your ED bullshitz page so you need to chill and not make enemies for no reason whatsoever.--MONGO02:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I edited an article, yes, to restore the essentially-unexplained removal of a reliable source. The fact that I edited that article does not in any way, shape or form constitute Wikistalking. On the other hand, that you and DHeyward apparently feel that you have ownership of that article is apparent by the way you refer to your shared editing of it.
Also, you're now attempting to intimidate me by randomly referring to a ridiculous pile of garbage taken seriously only by the lowest form of Internet bottom-feeding scum. Quite the argument you have going for you. Very logical indeed. Sorry, but I'm not scared of anonymous Internet thugs and their nonsense-making. Do you believe everything you read on anonymous trollery sites? Because that says far more about you than it does about me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
OMG...I said we were "lamenting" the page...have you seen the page they have on me? Where were you when I was fighting a horde of ED twerps on this website? Ever look at arbcase MONGO?--MONGO02:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Why would you even bring the existence of that page up here, MONGO? And no, I haven't seen the page they have on you, because I don't make a habit of reading ED or giving a shit what it says about anyone or even bothering to mention it anywhere. They've got vicious attack pages on tons of people who are disliked by anon dipshits, that's just what they do, and literally nobody of consequence takes it seriously. I'm glad that you and I can agree that ED is a meaningless trollfarm of Internet garbage, and if we're both disliked by anon dipshits, then we must both be doing something right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Between GG and the latest case at arbcom, there's a lot of unsupported accusations flying around, many amounting to personal attacks. If you think PtF is a sock, fill out an SPI with evidence. Coming to an admin directly without evidence is highly suspect to put it nicely. I try to keep GG at am arm's length, but this is getting out of hand. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Blah... Bishonen may not smell a sock as good as Bishzilla but zilla has this page watchlisted so it works just fine.--MONGO01:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur...if this were MONGOpedia everyone would have been topic banned. Because I am very mean.--MONGO01:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
What the hell? NBSBDHeyward shows up to ask Bish if there's a chance a certain account is an alternate. Seems MONGO agrees with him that there's something fishy about the account. Then all of a sudden we have open warfare about completely unrelated issues? Come on folks, everyone calm down. This is the war room, you can't fight here. Risker (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
And here I was thinking it referred to wars or political campaigns. I have to get around to finally watching the film. Thanks for the cultural explanation. LizRead!Talk!20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Mike V is already on the task. (FWIW, my skeptics's radar is pinging about some of the identity claims, but that is neither here nor there since our response remains unchanged.)Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Totally. I haven't looked in depth at the edits either, but given them a nice soft usernameblock with the option to create a new name. Probably too much AGF. Bishonen | talk20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC).
I noticed your comments about this block you recently performed. I agree 100% with your analysis and that the user's "common sense" explanation following my request for more information was sufficient to justify a block. I have been trying to help out at ANI with Dispute Resolution, and I'm new to it, but I have been a teacher and worked in law, and I have seen enough Wiki disputes to know that sometimes the accuser is as guilty as the accused and may be good at hiding it. I believe the burden of evidence should be on the accuser to clearly show the problem (and failed attempts to correct it), not the accused to prove otherwise or for the judge to have to hunt for evidence to figure out what is going on (You are no doubt better at that than I am!) I found the user's initial complaint was hastily thrown together, vague and contained no specific pointer to evidence. So I was prodding the user to give us something to work with, which the user did. Maybe I asked for too much. Can I assume you agree that it was reasonable to request more information that what was initially provided? David Tornheim (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
David, I'll leave it to Bishonen to answer the question you posed, but in the meantime can I request that you desist from posting at ANI, RSN and other community noticeboards (unless you have complaint or question, of course)? I have looked at your recent posts at ANI and RSN, and while clearly well-intentioned, your attempts to help have ended up muddying the water and misdirecting the person asking for aid. Perhaps some more experience in mainspace will help you be more helpful sometime in the future. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(Regular ANI stalker) Depending on the complexity of the posting, I'd suggest doing some digging of your own prior to commenting on various threads on ANI. You can activate the pop ups preference that brings up the various links, such as contribs, when you hover your mouse pointer over the link. So rather than having to open up a new tab or window you can have a quick browse through a given editors' history. This also works with article, talk page, wikispace pages, histories, etc. Blackmane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Abecedare and Blackmane. Hi, David, I'm glad you came here. I understand you want to learn, so I'll answer you frankly. No, I don't think there was any need to ask for more information than the initial ANI post by Sundayclose. It even contained the useful {{User|}} template, which provides direct links to the reported user's contributions and their talkpage. From those two quick clicks it was obvious that they never responded to anything and never used edit summaries nor talkpages, and I could see the warnings they had received and ignored. Diffs and the other things you asked for wouldn't have been any help, just busywork. Also, it's problematic to ask so much of a new user. Listing diffs is a timeconsuming job for anybody — I hate doing it — besides not being useful in this case. Users, especially inexperienced users, should be thanked for reporting a problem, not asked to put in work that's probably difficult for them, but easy for an admin reviewing the report. For instance, most users can't easily find somebody's block log, but for experienced admins it's just a click away. As for your request for policies, admins, rather than new users, are supposed to know about them.
If you put yourself in the shoes of an inexperienced user posting a report on, for example, ANI, they probably have to put quite a bit of work just into finding the right noticeboard and describing the problem. Even if the report is flawed, which I don't think this one was, as long as it's in good faith they should be applauded for helping Wikipedia rather than told off to do more.
You're right that frivolous bad-faith complaints are common on the noticeboards, and we always need to read them with a healthy cynicism, but I don't actually think it's easy for OPs to hide their own guilt. Histories are pretty transparent. I appreciate you wanting to help at ANI, and in another case, your requests might have been reasonable, but it's always best to start by looking at what's needed in this case. I have to agree with Abecedare that more work on articles would put you in a better position to be helpful on ANI. Bishonen | talk12:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
Thank you all for your feedback. I will do my best not to muddy the waters any further. (Bishonen: I really appreciate your concern for new users and your dedication to find the party who is the bigger problem.) I will finish up on the issues on the Noticeboards I had already been engaged in when I got the advice to back off. When matters do concern articles I work on, I may weigh in.
I do have one question. If I see discussion of an article on a Noticeboard that I have never before worked on, and then as basically a third party observer, begin reading about it and the RS, and then I become interested in the subject, the article and the RS materials about it, then as a third party is it:
encouraged
discouraged/prohibited or
neither/other
to edit the article. I have noticed at times I learn far more on a subject than I had ever intended to, and then I wonder if I should or should not edit an article, since I found it on a noticeboard. I could see how it might be annoying to those who bring something to a NB to have new people from that NB come in to edit the article, when all they wanted was advice or DR. But I haven't seen anything about this in Policy.David Tornheim (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Bishonen but I'll add a couple of things. First, any dispute brought to a noticeboard (whether it is ANI, AE, RSN, COI, etc.) will bring attention to both the editors and the subject matter. Mainly because by signaling a dispute exists and publicizing that fact, it draws the eyes of both those who are curious as well as admins who want to see if the tools are called for. So, additional attention is a given.
Second, I think whether it is encouraged or discouraged depends on what you are bringing to the talk page discussion. Is the dispute regarding a subject or policy matter you are well-versed in? I think than your presence would be welcome. Are you going there to try to mediate and cool down the overheated editors? This might be acceptable but don't expect to be thanked for your efforts! Does the dispute involve another editor who drives you crazy and who you see as "stirring up trouble" on an article that you've never even looked at before? In this case, your participation would be discouraged as it would bring old baggage into a dispute that might already be complex and difficult to untangle.
So, I think in each instance, you might ask yourself a) can I offer some useful perspective to this discussion? and b) is this a personal issue for me regarding another editor? Be honest and if you answered "yes" to a and "no" to b, I think your participation would be encouraged. LizRead!Talk!20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
David Tornheim, you're not discouraged from editing an article just because you found it on a noticeboard. I gather there have been some problems with your comments on article talkpages, but I'm leaving that to others. It's your input on the noticeboards that Abecedare and I are concerned about here. Since I just noticed your input in this ANI thread, my concerns aren't limited to poorly considered advice, either. Dragging your own grudge against Jytdog in where it doesn't belong[158] and then continuing to stir the pot is an example of a bad idea. You ported it to a now-blocked user's talkpage, too.[159] Treating Wikipedia as a battleground| and attempting to strike up alliances with your enemy's enemy is a problem wherever it happens, but to begin with, I hope you'll take a voluntary break from the noticeboards. Bishonen | talk11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for the feedback. I do not have a grudge against Jytdog. I have raised issues about his problematic behavior, which long preceded my entry onto the pages where we had disagreements on content and/or policy. In fact, that was why he brought me to the ANI in the first place, in reaction to my allegations that he was biting a new user and because I placed the allegations on the user's talk page, which apparently is a violation of some Wiki-rule. I admit I have no Wiki-legal law degree, and despite much reading of Policy, Guideline and Essays, and continued study, even simple questions about rules of procedure and relevant cases showing the application of the procedure are hard to look up. I have the feeling even experienced users are not fully Wiki-legal barred either. But I am not saying ignorance of the law is an excuse. I wish to learn. I asked at my ANI, and I did not get clear answers on what one is supposed to do if they believe a new user (either to Wikipedia or to an article) is being bitten, so that the new user does not leave Wikipedia and/or the article, out of frustration. And it often happens very quickly.
Although I wouldn't say DiPiep was bitten (because s/he is not a new user), I believe s/he had no idea that the small number of allegations of COI would result in all the drama that has ensued. The COI allegations from DiPiep and warnings from Jytdog happened very rapidly, and DiPiep was clearly blind to where things were going, which is entirely predictable of what has happened to other users who accused Jytdog and certain users of COI on the relevant article--long before I edited them. I assumed DiPiep had been on other talk pages (like the many I have seen) where ad hominems are thrown back and forth and no one is taken to AN/I unless it gets very very bad and insults go back and forth getting increasingly worse in intensity, duration and tone. I thought DiPiep had a right to know that there would be zero tolerance for COI allegations about Jytdog and the others--that he was not dealing with amateurs who would bungle an AN/I case if they brought it. I tried to dig up old cases where others had been blocked or banned for COI allegations, but the clock was ticking and I could see DiPiep was not backing down. So I immediately pulled up the only case I knew of--my ANI--to show him/her. I knew that was not the right one to choose, but the clock was ticking. That was before the AN/I. I have not interacted directly with him/her since. I was not trying to form any alliance with him/her; I was just warning someone who did not know their behavior was not going to be tolerated by the user(s) and that continuing it would have very serious consequences. It's unfortunate that DiPiep did not back down, as numerous ANI's have resulted from it. I honestly would prefer to be able to edit without all this avoidable drama. So, no, I don't have a grudge against Jytdog and was trying to prevent drama by my warning to DiPiep, not encourage it. And my response in DiPiep's AN/I was meant as a deterrent to the drama we saw there, which I think could have been settled outside of AN/I, if cooler heads prevailed at the time the incidents happened.
Is that you floating there in the Dead Sea, Hafspaj? I've listed it on the closure requests part of WP:AN, describing your plight in very moving terms.[160] But notice that there are still unclosed discussions from January 8 (mentioned higher up on AN). Admittedly, they look a lot less interesting. Now if you'll stop edit conflicting me for just a moment, perhaps I'll get this posted. Bishonen | talk10:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
Good block. I was about 20 seconds behind you on the block button for this one. I was ready to indef after that one, but I won't officially object to your 48 hour block. My personal opinion is, given the context of that comment, we would need an unambiguous statement that he understood its inappropriateness and an understanding not to do it again before unblocking. In 48 hours, he'll just be back at it again. Still, something had to be done, and I'm glad you did it. --Jayron3223:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There was some provocation, as Jytdog was (uncharacteristically) het up. But I'm far from sure. Actually, after seeing that comment (on ANI itself! ), and blinking several times in disbelief , I read no further, my hand just went to the block button. I don't know the user nor the dispute well; please feel free to extend the block if there's a history of those kinds of attacks. Bishonen | talk23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC).
thank you for putting that to bed. i thought i made a very clear, simple case and it went all haywire. i didn't count on self-destruction but given the attitude, it is not surprising. i have no notable history with DePiep and cannot comment on his behavior otherwise. Others said he makes good contributions in chemistry matters; perhaps that is so and if so, i hope he does learn. i would prefer that everybody get to stay and learn to interact decently enough... and at least apologize when they don't. i have been het up before and said things i regretted. it happens. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it's amazing how long people get away with poor behavior. Sometimes seems that so long as they don't start spewing "bad words" or confine their attacks to unpopular editors, they can be absolutely vicious with apparent impunity ... which was the case with that editor. Montanabw(talk)17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all, but please don't comment further on the user on my page. I don't want him to post here, and I can hardly deny him the right of response if people keep talking about him. Bishonen | talk18:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, I noticed you making some sensible comment to Ched, so I popped over here to take a look. I like your essay on false apologies. They are doubly insidious because the good faith recipient (who has typically been harmed or insulted by the apologizer) naturally wants to accept, but doesn't realize it's insincere. So the false apology preys on the goodness of the person being fooled. It's then a double-victimization.
I also noticed you identify as female at your userpage. I appreciate online gender identification generally because it solves the gender pronoun question. For whatever reason I dislike the increasingly common practice of using "they" as gender pronoun for an individual. "They" and "their" are plural! I usually go ahead and say "he or she" and for a while there I even tried "he, she, or intergender" which was sort of onerous. I am male.
Anyhow, I asked Ched to review my ban (this edit is clearly-identified block evasion via raw IP, I have no other workable avenue). You can see that at his talkpage. I think that there is a culture of intimidation within the administrative ranks regarding unblocking. The hardliners move to punish those that unblock. I noticed it at Ched's talkpage where he suggests that Arbcom was mad at him for merely unblocking an editor's talkpage. In the past I noticed Ironholds in a WP:AN/ANI discussion warning off administrators that might unblock whomever it was by saying they would be "thwapped." Several times as I've sought to be unblocked, administrators have said, literally, "I don't want to get involved" or, paraphrasing, "this potato is too hot for me, sorry." They fear reprisal from the hardliners. Maybe if you and Ched have a look at my case together, you'll not feel as intimidated if you lean toward a positive outcome.
Enough of my yakking. The situation is I'm blocked for socking but never did it. I had a single prior account that I abandoned for privacy reasons (as authorized by WP:CLEANSTART. In my prior account I originally authored maybe eight articles and greatly contributed to many more. I didn't survive long as Colton Cosmic but I at least originally authored Rain City Superhero Movement (its condition was far better when I wrote it, and has been extremely poorly maintained) so nobody should say that "not here" nonsense. If you'll consider helping you can read what I wrote at Ched' talkpage. Like him, I encourage you to give me a chance to respond to any criticisms of me that you have. Colton Cosmic. Ah, here's at least a single link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Statement_of_the_dispute. 205.144.171.80 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC).
I've read your RfC and followed some links in it, particularly WritKeeper's, and checked your talkpage conversations, particularly with Anthonyhcole in February 2014, and my conclusion is that your case has had sufficient review. Sorry. Bishonen | talk08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC).
I am grateful that you restored my comment after Lukeno94 (Neil?) deleted it, that you took the time to read as much as you did. That's more than most administrators do, and I'll move along, but I'd like to respond. The RFC was corrupted in that I was denied the opportunity to defend myself. It is the only RFC/U in Wikipedia history in which the subject was denied participation. Neither were the commenters a representative group of Wikipedians, they were overwhelming WP:AN/ANI regulars that had watchlisted my talkpage, and some, I will speak frankly, are my long-term hounders. Particularly Workthatturned's two heaping opinions on me mere hours after the RFC opened were galling to have to endure, because the first contained easily-correctable factual errors that were damaging to me and I couldn't respond, and then the second if you read it "Quiet Return" informs me I should just start socking, which was the one thing I *wouldn't* do.
Now, Writkeeper and Anthonyhcole are okay ones to be partially informed by, Anthony particularly is a very thoughtful and detailed person. Writkeeper was concerned that, while my clearly-identified block evasion was in vast majority to appeal my block, I had done a minority of other things and he was concerned he didn't know enough on them. If I could have responded I would have told him that someone found the time to put a big list of the IPs I have used linked from my userpage, and he can peruse them to his heart's content. I would have been willing to tell him as a shortcut a summary of my IP activities that *I* thought he might be concerned with. But if your mindset is that there always might be a skeleton yet to fall from the closet, there's no way to be sure, there is nothing I can do about that. And with regard to those edits, one has to keep in mind I hobby-edited Wikipedia for years, so to just turn off that desire to do that work, which I thought was beneficial, one has to be a robot. Which I'm not. The stuff Writkeeper says about Youreallycan, yes I did a third-party unblock request on him because I felt he was hounded and unjustly banned. I'd really have to dive back into the details of that exchange, but I guess it was Writkeeper deleted that unblock request without edit comment. If he explained the edit elsewhere, I didn't know it. I don't think it was on YRC's talkpage. He seemed to me to take offense that I uttered the words "abusive in the context" but I think we cleared it up later, I wasn't saying he was an abusive administrator. I didn't even know he was an administrator.
Finally, as to Anthonyhcole where you said you read him, he's gone past microscope analysis of my editing history and all the way to *electron* microscope analysis of my editing history. What he's doing there is far from removed from "is there evidence he socked" (which is what I was indeffed for all. He's gone into the realm of looking at darn near every edit I made (which no-one else ever did, surely not my original blocker) and pulling out the things that anyone could possibly have a problem with. This is a weird way for Wikijustice to be made (I know he wasn't). It also doesn't account for the positive work I did, in that short time, such as Rain City Superhero Movement. So what Anthony is doing there, and he caveats it with things like "at first glance someone might have thought you were," and "proposing the change to 3RR might have been problematical, I'll explain later," and then at the end Anthony says "hey all that was really just me thinking out loud." If you want to go by Anthony's decisive viewpoint he said at his official opinion at the RFC that I should be unblocked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colton_Cosmic#Outside_view_by_Anthonyhcole).
Okay, so so long and farewell. While I disagree with you that I have received sufficient review (because I have been at every step denied the ability to defend myself) that's your decision. If you think you might ever change it, please go ahead and watchlist my talkpage so you can provide an informed voice if I get close to digging out of this. Colton Cosmic.
No problem. Tis worth noting that my decision to remove the post initially led to CC deciding to stalk through some of my edits in order to file an ANI case - kind of puts a dent in their claims of not being a sockpuppeter and not being disruptive. I take my hat off to you, Bish, for being more tolerant of that sort than I am, and wish you a good day. :) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Never mind how, Neil. The main thing is you are involved, up to your eyeballs! Just you watch yourself, my man! Bishonen | talk17:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC).
Ze dauphin bébé iz ze testiest œv all cute animal bébés!
...truly are evil.[161] There's an almost exquisite form of depravity involved in picturing a 17th century French aristocrat relishing a dinner of unborn dolphin calf.
Hi, Ogress. (Bishzilla is very intrigued by your username.) If you see really obvious sockpuppeting, it's enough to tell an admin, as you have done, and they'll indef per WP:DUCK. Unfortunately I don't see this case as clear enough for that. Yes, it's pretty likely to be a sock of Patriot Nepali2015, but I don't see any similar wording, or attacks on you, or even any equally poor English. Am I missing something? If not, I'm afraid I have to point you to the next stage, which is a WP:SPI report, if you can face it. A less onerous alternative is to watch and see if the user continues to remove sourced material after the warning I've just given them. Then they can be sanctioned (disinvited from Wikipedia) whether or not they're a sock. I'll try to keep my eyes open, but if I miss anything substantial, please tell me. Bishonen | talk19:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
I mean, they are the exact same edits: "it is not proven yhat Kyirongs are yolmos." [163] v. [164] - Tibetan Buddhism > Nepali Buddhism, removal of Tibetan information, removal of Tibetan language, removal of Kyirong. It's toned down - no personal attacks against me, for example - but the content of the changes is the same. Also I'd argue that edit summary is poor English... Ogresssmash!20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about Ogress, but I know when I get a certain bad feeling in my gut that a sock has returned. Ogress has good instincts. I think it's worth a closer look. The Tibetan Buddhism articles also get hit a lot by clutists, POV-pushers and (probably) editors with a connection to the government of China ... Montanabw(talk)22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Closer than what? I've looked. Obviously they're likely to be a sock, but I can't really tell whose. They've made five edits which all removed sourced material. If they do it again, I'll block, but they haven't in fact edited since I warned them. Please open an SPI if you think it's worth it. And please feel free also to notify me if you see them editing in a similar manner again, I may of course miss it. Bishonen | talk22:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
I'll let Ogress take the lead, I have some other fish to fry in the wiki-drama world, but if anyone wants a 3O, let me know. Montanabw(talk)23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
FCBayern at Jimbo's page
FCBayern786 is an IAC sock. I've just reverted one effort at Jimbo's page but it would seem that there are no admins with background knowledge watching at the moment. Can you spot it? - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it was your semi of Raju that made me realise you were around. Thanks for that. BTW, is that Laurel & Hardy pic safe for epileptics? It's moving pretty fast (a lot faster than I can move nowadays!) - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
FCBayern786 now doubly blocked.[165] I wonder if the block log is capable of giving a block conflict? But at least I got there "first". Yes, impressive, aren't they? Bishonen | talk17:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC).
Thank you for your helpful revert here. I've gone over to the culprit's page to show him the reason for Laurel and Hardy's frenzied dance. Trying to get away from the anklebiter, you know. Fat chance! darwinbishBITE☠19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC).
TY
Thank you for the help on my talk, it's greatly appreciated. You are very correct in that my time on wiki is very limited. Following that thought - I will also be traveling in the very near future. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd also be grateful if you could look in or keep an eye on my talk through the end of the month. Considering the number of "Ched credits" you've already accumulated, I freely post the following:
Family? Hehehehehe. We all have power of attorney of Ched's page! Yee haw! We'll keep a lookout! [Darwinbish trains her laser eyes on Ched's page.] darwinbishBITE☠18:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC).
Darwinbish - so nice to see you again. Thank you for your kind assistance, I shall not forget it. (apologies for my aged and faulty memory - but are you the one with sharp teeth?). In regards to "Power of Attorney" .. ironic that you should mention that. [166]. Indeed - I am working on all that as time permits. :) — Ched : ? 01:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
They're not doing any really bad (although they are making a lot of newbie mistakes) but there is something odd going on around Dalit-related articles right now. Within a very short space of time, we've got:
and I think some others all hitting such articles. Weird or what? It's certainly creating a big clean up job for categories etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the right to edit and participate in Wikipedia is everyone's. And in fact we are correcting what are glaring mistakes with respects to Dalit History. If you have any questions please contact us directly.
(edit conflict) Wow, thank you, Abecedare. I was going to post a question to the user, but now I guess I don't need to. You'd better take it to WP:ANI, Sitush.
Welcome to Wikipedia, user:Phlamingo642. Please sign your posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~, which will convert automatically to your signature and a timestamp.
There is a livestream of the event here. Watched 2-3 minutes of it and am slapping my head in frustration. Could have been so much better organized with some guidance of best wikipedia editing practices. Also categorization is a particularly poor project to undertake especially when you have access to some of the best library resources in the world (student in Boston/Cambridge-area universities can borrow from any of the area's 40+ university libraries) that can be used to source and expand some vital articles. Only a few edits have been made to the articles that said to be the focus: Mangu Ram Mugowalia, Gogu Shyamala and Chokhamela. Such an utter waste!
In a laboratory far away is a proposed "Montzilla" (name pending) - gathering appropriate elements but inquiring as to if teh wiki needs more 'zillas before throwing the switch. @Ched: Would not want to get between existing 'zillas, more thinking "baby zilla" for the moment. Montanabw(talk)22:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Will let ONE AND ONLY, true original 'Zilla respond. Noting that "this" 'Zilla well informed about "harem". rrRRAWRRRRR .. — ChedZILLA04:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If you could, please take a look at the article about Trayvon Martin. Some people add an infobox, some people removes the infobox. I am for having an infobox, but I can not tell if it is OK not to have one etc etc.. Another user has removed it again, claiming that a consensus has been reached earlier. A consensus that does not exist. Could you please take a look. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I .. I ... In ... Inf ...<cough> .. teh "box"!!! ... arrRRGHh.. <Ched runs screaming from the room> — Ched : ? 15:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The definition of consensus varies greatly, - I stay in the room. Some seem to think that it means that the Main editors are in consensus to ignore the rest of Wikipedia. I could give you examples but would be sanctioned by arbitration enforcement if I did, - not worth it. Happy Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Calm down Ched. I've restored the infobox and made clear the position on the talk page. BabbaQ is right to be concerned by the ownership behaviour displayed by the other principal editor. It is not acceptable to revert content based only on an argument that it is "unnecessary"; nor to rely on a discredited essay to support such edits; nor to mendaciously claim that there was consensus not to have an infobox based on the three brief sections in Talk:Trayvon Martin/Archive 1. 'Shonen is agnostic about infoboxes as far as I know, but I expect she will keen an eye out for poor behaviour if asked nicely. --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
RexxS Your edit has been reverted again, I think it is really weird. Anyway just say your point at the talk page. Or something... to Ched, take a pill :)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Note to Bishonen: I've made use of "catflap" and protected the article for 24 hours due to edit warring. I've also made a 1 week request to continue protection at WP:RFPP. I'm sure it's the WP:WRONGVERSION, but if one day of protection can avoid an editor from being blocked, I thought it was worth a try. — Ched : ? 17:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Ched....infoboxwars is really tiresome. While I have used them religiously (specific religion is MONGOLOGY...the worship of hairy woodland critters) if it doesn't exist already, a guideline needs to be made that infoboxes should be avoided if an article has at least two paragraphs and the info is incorporated into them.--MONGO19:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean we should have a guideline that the original author of stubby article gets the right to decide whether any given improvement is included or not? Over my dead body. --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry...I meant if the guideline does not exist already...but already modified that stance as stated below. Much gets done here at mighty Bishonen page...useful place to discuss matters of utmost importance and done nicely to avoid arrival of Jurassic entities.--MONGO12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Not what I see. The decisions of original and former authors are of no importance whatsoever, if enough authors rewriting an article as a FA arrive at "their" consensus, ignoring a history of 8 years, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm agnostic about infoboxes, I'd rather not get involved. That said, I was sort of pleasantly surprised to see the heading "Trayvon Martin" on my page and then discover the issue was merely the infobox. Here's hoping that means the other warfare on the article has died down. Incidentally, RexxS, I don't understand what "key-value pairs" are, that you described on the talkpage as one of the advantages of infoboxes. I know you linked the term. Didn't help, Little Stupid still don't get it. But he likes the sound of MONGOLOGY, and would like to join. Support group? Sect? Bishonen | talk19:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC).
Then 'Name' is a key (or label) and "Bishapod" is its value; similarly 'Type' is a key and "Tiktaalik" is its value, and so on. Infoboxes organise their information into these sort of key-value pairs. It is relatively easy to search a data dump of Wikipedia for these sort of pairs and collect the information for use beyond simply reading Wikipedia. Someone could, for example, easily compile a list of the names of 17th century composers by listing the values for 'Name' wherever we find 'Occupation' is "composer" and 'Date-of-birth' is between 1600 and 1700 - if only the articles had infoboxes (*sigh*). Does that help Poddie at all? --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I can understand someone saying that they think an infobox looks ugly, or swamps a small article. Those are aesthetic judgements and folks are entitled to have them. It doesn't upset me, just as I don't worry if any particular article doesn't have an infobox. So what? What does bother me is when an editor adds an infobox and is reverted by someone who isn't literate enough to supply a cogent reason for the revert. "it's not needed" is worthless as an argument; "get consensus first" is antithetical to the very nature of editing Wikipedia; and "it's been previously discussed and there was consensus not to add an infobox" is usually a downright lie. If they just said "I don't like infoboxes", at least that would be intellectually honest. Why, oh why do we let the OWNers get away with treating other editors so shabbily? --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can understand someone thinking an infobox looks ugly, sure. But it's not exactly a credible argument, and certain editors seem to have little better to do than go around warring over the damn things. Some people can't look beyond their own biases and acknowledge that other people may be right; they may not see the point for something, but a decent number of other users (or, far more importantly, readers) will do. It's a failing most of us have from time to time (myself definitely included)... but some people consistently take their path and never allow common sense to change anything. (end of ramble, I'm tired) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)23:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Since this page is a better place to get things done than in regular project space (the dread of appearances by Bishzilla keeps most in a best behavior mode) I agree with RexxS as to the usefulness of taxoboxes (infoboxes) in articles about species or perhaps geographical locations but in biographies not so sure.--MONGO23:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
For Presidential biographies and other political figures, they are critical. Most sports figures and modern actors/musicians have them as well. There is plenty of room to debate what parameters are or are not needed, but that's a content issue, not a formatting issue - I consider infoboxes, like navboxes and the like to be formatting and structural/layout elements that generally enhance an article so long as one is not absurd about it (i.e. probably don't really need the height and weight parameters for Presidents, but useful for supermodels, LOL). Montanabw(talk)03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
indexing is good and should have infobox for every article. Aesthetically, though, we should have hide/show field so the visibility is on or off. Infoboxes that have common indexes make wikipedia similar to SQL database and easy to extract very specific information. Queries like "list every country in the world and their current leader and flag" is possible with infoboxes. Very tedious without. Tedious if many types of infoboxes, too. Key/value pairs is like tagging but with names for tag. firstname="Trayvon", lastname="Martin" database is created and tag searching by field is possible like list articles that have "Martin" tag in "lastname" field. --DHeyward (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would be much less annoyed if we could limit the ugliness of the userboxes, or perhaps put them at the bottom of an article. Until recently at work my monitor was kinda narrow, so between the left side Wikipedia stuff and then an info box on the right, the lead paragraph or two ended up being just a couple words wide and hard to read. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
How ...
Fish rides in on my coattails
... did you get Laurel and Hardy to dance for us whenever we want to edit your talk page, but only then? Nifty, and it did the trick and kept me from throwing in my worthless observation regarding boxes. ---Sluzzelintalk23:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine dancers! I recommend everybody to have something dancing in their edit notice, or maybe swimming, like this super cool frog. Oddly, FreeRangeFrog didn't like that gif, so it's up for grabs. He thought the frog was floundering and drowning. Nooo! Excellent swimmer! Bishonen | talk15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
Both of us twins, you mean? Well, any day now, as soon as my RfA is closed and Fish rides in on my coattails. Dino RexxS ain't admin, no. I think he's too proud. darwinbishBITE☠22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
Ooh, how to dig myself out of this one? I actually thought Rexx was an admin (though I wish the we had a whole admin-drawer of bish-creatures (though I opposed 'Zilla's candidacy for arbitrator (though this was once again 'Shonen's fault))) Sorry Rexx, that's what you get for speaking with such a voice! ---Sluzzelintalk23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
OK, Bishonen, I was not aware of that, so thanks for informing me. I assume the same warning has been given to editors who have been repeatedly reversing my contributions? Is this the case?
I'd also like to ask what happens in case no consensus can be reached.
If you look at the page history, you'll see that your edits have been reverted by four different editors. No one has reverted you "repeatedly". They're not edit warring and I've had no reason to warn them. Also, several of them have pointed out in the edit summary that your additions are "non-neutral", "fringe", etc, and have asked you to discuss the changes you want on the article talkpage. I see you've just started using the talkpage now; thank you for that.
I realize that, although you started editing in 2006, you're not exactly an experienced editor, User:Musoniki. Perhaps you never saw the other people's edit summaries. The history of a page, where you can read all the edit summaries, is accessed via a tab at the top of each article.
Your idea of neutrality, as it comes across in your edit summaries and talkpage posts, isn't quite the same as Wikipedia's; neutral point of view ("NPOV", in Wikipedia jargon) does not mean giving equal weight to all views. You've already been pointed to our policy Neutral point of view, for instance by McSly on your page, but it's a long elaborate policy and I'm not sure you've focused on the most relevant bit for this dispute: WP:UNDUE. Please study it carefully, because it addresses your situation directly.
this looks much nicer; I'll be back soon sweetheart!
I should jolly well think you have changed your mind! We shall be steaming the yacht back down the Gulf of Finland tomorrow and had thought of popping into see you (G was very keen) but alas no time. Such fun we are having, but have bought you a souvenir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.167.231.140 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right
You're correct of course. Bolding the "crazy" part of his name was just poking a stick in the cage. I've removed it. I gave into the frustration of the exchange. Mea culpa. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
As a point of interest, you might want to look at this archived ANI discussion. Do you see any similarities to the current one about me? [167]Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Issues with 86, were worked out. [168] It was a matter of Reliable sources. Anything questionable I go to the rs/noticeboard Which is why I stick to google news and google books. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the articles created that were deleted. [169] Some of the sources I had previously used were not what they consider to be reliable sources. After the non reliable sources were mentioned to me, I stopped using them. I started to only use sources that appeared on google news or on google books. I have even gone to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if sources were good to use. [170] The SPI wasn't frivolous as a number of editors were previously investigated as being members of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa/Archive Other admins (. St★lwart111) have stated that there were problems in WP:TAGTEAM . [171] specifically [172] Most of my articles are about individuals who were are notable via wiki standards such as African Americans sports players during segregation James “Pappy” Ricks, Olympians such as Thomas Martin (judoka) or National Champions such as Howard Fish.
With 140 articles about 9 have been deleted. This isn't a horrible percentage. This is under 10%. Considering that most of the individuals who were deleted were African American Judo fighters, I pointed out that statistic, to which they claimed I claimed I said they were racist or bigoted. I never stated anyone was a racist or a bigot. I pointed out a statistic. After this issue was closed, one user tried to revive the issue, to which an admin stated ". Systemic bias is a recognized issue on Wikipedia" [173] Some of the deleted articles, I am waiting for more sources to appear such as Al Gotay, which was speedily deleted even I replied to a prod, another user wrote another message stating it should be deleted (it never even made it to AFD).
I have previously used Articles for Creation [174], but the backlog is so big that it is frustrating to use. I did say, I create so others can work. Meaning we all have skills that can be used on wikipedia. To me an article is like building a car on a production line. I put in the headlights, others put on the wheels, others put on the seats, etc. I don't own any articles I create. I rarely revert edits. I find topics of individuals whom I believe are noteworthy and create them. I look at some guidelines like [WP:WPBB/N]] and create articles from there (such as Negro League Baseball players or WP:NHOOPS such as players in the New York Rens You did notice some of the bullying [175], and there is a lot the [176], such as I put in bogus claims [177], but I put in a simple explanation [178] and
find additional sources [179]. I have improved in my article creation and firmly believe that if you put me on a creation ban, I will simply retire from wikipedia out of sheer frustration. I am not disruputing wikipedia actively or passively, I am creating articles that for most people are notable and according to wiki standards are notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This tool locates 147 biographical articles (including 15 deleted) that you wrote 2010—2015, CrazyAces489; certainly a respectable number. I've clicked on some of the not-deleted bios from the list (I'd already checked out the deleted ones). Not all of them — I'm only human — but a recent sample — and I think "putting in the headlights" is an odd metaphor for what you do. Your articles are nearly all so minimal, and most of the ones I've clicked on have tags about being orphans, needing copy editing, "multiple issues", etc, and/or are listed for deletion, or have been listed for deletion and only just squeezed by. It really worries me that you seem more prepared to spend time on arguing in deletion discussions (not to mention SPI and ANI), than on improving the stubs you create. I've never see you return to one of them. As for going to the Reliable sources noticeboard: yes, once during the creation of 147 bio stubs you have gone to RSN. Not enough, you know.
One example: has nobody ever complained about the strange verb tense you use so persistently? I wish you'd go back over your articles and change the "would" thing that you use inappropriately in practically all of them. You write "He would pass away from prostate cancer", "Eve would train Judo at the Yonkers YMCA" etc etc. Indeed, in Eve Aronoff, one of your longer articles with 218 words, you say Eve "would" do this and that (all of it of course well in the past) 13 times! If things happened in the past, which is normally the case with everything in a biographical article, then use the past tense. "Eve trained Judo at the Yonkers YMCA". Didn't she? I wouldn't be complaining about style if I thought you were incapable of better writing, but you're obviously not. You don't do justice to your subjects with that kind of writing, and it's simply not fair to expect other people to add a whole car to the headlights you've put on the wiki. Please fix at least this one thing—so to speak, the windscreen wipers.
That said, I certainly hear you about systemic bias, and also about the backlog at Articles for creation. OK, I won't insist you go through AFC. But please start focusing more on quality than quantity, and give your creations more TLC before posting them in mainspace, or I'll be back.
BTW the tool I linked you to, with the list of your articles, is very wonky like all the labs tools. I see it's already down at this moment, though it was up when I looked an hour ago. You may have to try a few times. Bishonen | talk18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
Thank you, I understand. I became frustrated when 7 articles came up at once by Mdtemp. After I put in a lot of work into the articles. I argued found sources, argued again, and just gave up. One who made it through was James Thompson [180] whom was an Olympic Alternate 4 or 5 times and 6 time medalist in the National Championships while also being the subject of independent articles [181][182][183]. Even there, they kept saying he didn't pass manote, when he obviously passed GNG. I don't believe that the group of individuals were looking at WP:BEFORE where it stated "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform."
I was typically referred to opinions on subjects like wp:manote (even though it say it is a guide) and GNG (which is a policy). So I read some of these policies and made sure that my articles fit those narrow criteria. I started to put in minimal writing so that I wouldn't get upset if they were deleted. I used google news and google books as my primary sources as per AFD WP:BEFORE suggestions. That is why you see a lot more Olympians and Negro League players now from me. They are automatically considered to be notable. I was surprised to see some of the martial arts editors editing the articles on negro basketball and baseball players I created [184] and [185]. This annoyed me as it seemed to go into the area of WP:HOUNDING. I was trying to avoid them and possible confrontations. You are right when it comes to the Eve Aronoff article. I will fix that. Also 69-73 are the same person. [186]. He uses his nickname and a middle name (which are forwarded to one article). That article was initially speedily deleted but passed DRV [187] . So that is why I didn't count them and had a lower number than the 14. Number 132 redirects to another article. That leaves 8, which will probably turn into 10 (I am assuming that John Roseberry another African American Judo practitioner who won a silver in the national championships (had an independent article written about him, founded a style of karate, and won multiple military championships) in Judo will be deleted. I do believe that I am doing far better than some other individuals who have created articles on martial arts [188] Again, thanks for responding and I will address my own issues. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Could I make a serious suggestion? Instead of trying to see how many articles you can create, would you consider taking time to try to bring one, just one, of your articles to good article status? I really think that working the process, concentrating on sourcing and construction and the review process would really give you a different perspective on how you create future articles. It would improve your skills. If you are trying to improve Wikipedia, and I believe that is your intent, then this could help you not just make many articles, but higher quality ones. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Niteshift, I would have tried for a few but so many articles that I seriously worked on were cut down so much, that I gave up. Examples [189], Ron Duncan[190], and even Racism in martial arts where so much has been cut down [191]. I am not getting paid to write for wikipedia. I am doing it because I like to spread knowledge of various subjects. If they continuosuly get cut down it and even sources I suggest to use aren't even allowed it tells me to keep things short and simple. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say do them all. Just pick one. One only. Pick one you feel has the best sourcing and isn't remotely non-notable so you won't feel like you did a lot of work only to see it get deleted. But then polish it, source it impeccably and then submit it for GA review. The peer review process, done by experienced, uninvolved editors, will really help you understand what is and is not a good addition. For example, you created an article on Ron Marchini. He was a big name in the full contact world in the 60-70's. He is undoubtedly notable. The article, however, is very weak. You have a tendency to throw in trivia and fluff. You also have a tendency to just put in sentences with no thought to flow or paragraph structure. Going through the peer review will help you learn better structuring of an article. It'll help you learn how to use reliable sources better. Bishonen already mentioned your odd "he would go to college" kind of wording. I truly believe taking the time to get an article up to GA and going through that process would give you a new perspective and make you much more valuable to the project as a whole. I suspect that our host Bishonen would agree. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Greater LBN
Gee, Bish, you're just plain faster than I am. You beat me to it by about a minute. I like the animation (at the top).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In case you didn't see it, in the AN/I discusion User:Nyttend said "I'm going to bed momentarily, and I'll be offline most of tomorrow; any admin who believes it appropriate should feel free to remove or reduce the block without further discussion." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Papaursa. You make good points, but I had already told the user here that I won't after all insist he go via AFC to create articles, as long as he undertakes to spend considerably more time and care on them before putting them in mainspace. Perhaps I'm incurably optimistic, but I can understand the frustration of the long waiting times at AFC. As for warning him off AfD discussions, that's certainly a thought, and I'll bear it in mind. But he hasn't responded to my conditions yet, so we'll have to wait and see. Bishonen | talk17:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC).
I think you called something AfD when you meant AfC in the message to CA. With respect to AfD's (if you do apply conditions) I think it would be hard to restrict someone from defending their creations but please suggest that he does not have to repeat his arguments to every comment given.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Did I get the alphabet soup wrong? I don't think so. I've looked through my messages to CA on ANI and on his page, and I can't find it. I don't see where Papaursa got it wrong either, if you were speaking to him. (I don't understand your threading. Were you actually speaking to the IP?) Anyway, never mind. Of course a complete ban from AfD would be very harsh — I'd only apply it in extremis, after all else had failed. My hope is that CrazyAces will change his article creation in such a way that he won't have any reason to be such a fixture at AfD. Bishonen | talk17:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC).
I would guess he was referring to this where you say "That said, I certainly hear you about systemic bias, and also about the backlog at Articles for creation. OK, I won't insist you go through AfD." a minor slip I think--86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that on April 10, CrazyAces added Mtking to the SPI even though Mtking hasn't made an edit since January 2013. I think the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyra Gracie shows that he simply refuses to learn WP policies. That's also evidenced by the many discussions where he clearly shows he doesn't know what WP:GNG actually says. I'd advocate he get a mentor, but I suspect that would be futile because I don't see any indication he's willing to change. That's too bad because his enthusiasm would be an asset to WP, but not at the cost of insulting every editor who disagrees with him on anything. He gets upset by the constraints because he doesn't seem to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I was speaking to Bishonen and since he's experienced, I knew he'd know what I was referring to, so there was no reason for me to explain it or link to it. Had I been speaking to you, I may have linked it or made it more clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What do you call a reliable source? There's only one source for that article and it's a random webpage. What would you take for an authority on make believe- a book? A "professional" astrologer?
See WP:RS for what we all call a reliable source: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There really isn't much to say about Leo (astrology) that's encyclopedic, so why it's not just a section in Astrology or List of signs of the zodiac is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, RexxS. The user has already been given the Reliable sources link, but I guess it didn't help them. Mr/Mrs IP, did you see my edit summary when I reverted you? The edit summaries, including yours, can be seen in the history of the article. I pointed out there that "astrological sources are by definition unreliable, because astrology is a pseudoscience." So not a "professional" astrologer, no. Maybe a chapter in a book by an academic cultural historian. But I agree with Rex that the signs shouldn't really have their own articles at all. As you said, IP, those articles used to be much longer, and then it made sense, sort of — except that the contents didn't make sense, because it was all about what people born under those signs were "like" — make believe, as you say. Strictly speaking, either you or I, Rex, ought to create that list of signs and redirect all the separate articles to it. And then we'll know what it's like to be attacked by outraged "professional" astrologers. Bishonen | talk23:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC).
I would have created the list, honest, but the only reliable source I could find for any star sign was in "Monty Python's Life of Brian":
Brian's mother
So you're astrologers, are you? Well, what is he then ... what star sign is he?
I believe I've taken down all of my edits that you and others objected to in those two articles. Even though I personally disagree with the viewpoint that the Rockefeller Foundation supported Nazism, and I think it is more Bolshevik/Communist than Nazi, I realize I cannot force the other editors to look at other viewpoints than there's and its not really important. Is that enough of an improvement?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I also restored the part of the Holocaust denial book article that I'd removed because of the citation needed tag. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, Paul. When you say you had only taken out that material in Did Six Million Really Die because it had citation needed tags next to it, you have to remember Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anybody can edit — and add tags to. Those tags were themselves tendentious. You're obliged to use your own judgment, and take responsibility for your own edits. But I appreciate your being so reasonable about the things I objected to specifically. These objections were more in the way of examples, though. I see you have, even after you wrote the above, received several warnings about adding Category:Christian new religious movements to Islam (!) and Judaism (!!). This you did on the argument that for instance Islam "is more similar to Christianity than Mormonism is. Mormonism is considered Christian on wikipedia. Therefore, Islam is Christian." There is no way you can have thought those categories appropriate (or, if you did think it, please tell me so and I'll block you indefinitely per our principle Wikipedia:Competence is required). Instead, you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point about mormonism. That's actually vandalism.
Unless your aim is to see how far you can go before you're blocked, which is not much farther at all, I have a suggestion for you. Edit uncontroversial articles that need some love for a month or two, to get a feel for the place, and read up on the policies and guidelines that you have been linked to. Nobody really knows the entire byzantine mass of our policies, but when experienced editors and administrators link you to a policy/guideline, it's because you've gone counter to it and need to learn something. You might start with Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, that I just mentioned above. I assume there are some uncontroversial subjects that interest you. I'll copy our exchange here to your own page, not because you did anything wrong in posting here — that was fine — but because I tell you a few important things here, and it might be useful for them to be visible to other people who come to your page. If only to save you getting the same advice all over again. Bishonen | talk09:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
I know I can't just revert on the Rockefeller Foundation page. But isn't the burden of proof for the claim that the Rockefeller Foundation was linked to Joseph Mengele and the Nazis on the person who made that claim in the article, or those who support keeping it there, not on the person who wants to remove it. I'm not actually going to remove it unless I can get consensus, but I think whether it should remain should at least be analyzed. Another thing is that right next to that accusation, there's a statement the Rockefeller Foundation helped Jews escape from Nazi Germany, although its not exactly a contradiction since they're not the exact same topic, those two statements don't really fit in with each other, so most likely one of them is not correct.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's more convenient to have threaded discussion on one of our pages, and since you've returned here, let's keep it here. What you say seems only tenuously related to the specific editing I criticized, and to my advice. But I'm assuming you mean you took out material on the Rockefeller Foundation page that was sourced to Edwin Black and/or John Loftus (author)? Please click on those links and read our articles on them. Your view of them as "extremist authors" seems to be itself extremist. If you want to remove stuff on the ground that those two are not reliable sources, you'll have to argue that, and get consensus for it, at WP:RSN. I believe you'd find it difficult. Note that no source is reliable for everything; it's a source's reliability in a specific context that you'd need to address. To me, those two look very solid as sources for Holocaust-related stuff. Bishonen | talk22:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
John Loftus has claimed that Prescott Bush and Nelson Rockefeller were involved in helping the Nazis during World War II. That just seems a little wacky to me, and it also is similar to the arguments/conspiracy theorists of people like Alex Jones and David Icke who argue that western Masonry helped the Nazis, which also seems wacky to me. I suppose I'll have to research it more if I want to argue it further though. I actually own Loftus's book The Secret War Against the Jews and have read parts of it, maybe that will be a good place to start researching the claims.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are still inclined later and no-one else has picked up on it then I would be grateful but it is not a rush job: they've been a problem for many months, so a few hours or even days isn't going to make much difference. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Would a topic ban from "Rajput-related pages" cover it, Sitush? Or would he need the full pomp of "any page related to social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal"? It seems… so big. Not that it would make any practical difference, I don't suppose. Feel free to suggest. Bishonen | talk23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC).
A limited-scope ban would do the job but, as you say, that subject is likely to be all that interests them. Maybe suggest that if spend some time in other areas and can prove through their efforts that they are learning etc then maybe the limited topic ban could be revoked? The "indefinite does not mean infinite" argument. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, one thing, though, Sitush: the people he added here all have their own articles. Why isn't that enough of an indication of notability? Sampling them, I noticed one Jairaj991 had created himself — it's very poor but not proposed for deletion or anything. Most of them seem better than that. Bishonen | talk12:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
I think that the problem Sitush was complaining about isn't the notability of the individuals that Jairaj991 added to the Rathore article, it's the fact that having the surname Rathore doesn't automatically mean that the person belongs to that Rajput clan. Si has even made a note about that in his userspace, so it would seem to be a common problem. I guess it's a bit like claiming that everybody called MacDonald must belong to Clan MacDonald, even though we all know Ronald isn't a member. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeo, it s a WP:V situation, not a notability one. Often it is also a BLP problem, since the consensus is that they must self-identify as with religious belief etc. Helen Reddy almost certianly has no connection to Reddy, and in India itself many names span many castes, in part because the same gotra may appear in different jātis. It isn't just me who has had problems with that editor - NeilN has issued various warnings, for example. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right, I see. Not just notable people called Rathore, but members of the Rajput clan Rathore. I suppose Jairaj, even though like most people surely vastly more knowledgeable about clans and castes than me, could have made the same mistake in good faith. Indeed, you reverted it as a good-faith edit. I guess I won't sanction them at the moment, then, though of course I do see the problems. I won't weigh in — they have been warned enough — but I'm watching. Please also let me know if stuff happens that I miss. Bishonen | talk14:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
Your good faith stretches way beyond mine, Bish. There is no way Jairaj misunderstood the purpose of that section and my "good faith" revert is my usual reluctance to use plain rollback for fear of being accused of abuse. They are a POV-ridden caste-bound contributor, pure and simple: I deal with the sort day in, day out. Rajputs, Jats, Gurjars and Brahmins are among the worse that we have because they are all so damn vain. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Si. My motto is "never avoid anything for fear of being accused of abuse". Being accused of abuse can be the best feather in your hat![192]. Bishonen | talk15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
Hehe. Well, Jairaj's efforts at Shri Rajput Karni Sena were an abuse for sure. Typical puffery that masquerades as being sourced. I've been awake for over 36 hours now and need a break but if it were not for the item I've temporarily stuck in the Further reading section, I'd probably be inclined to send that trash to AfD because it is a single, really rather minor event. Forty people get upset and, yes, as is common there, the police stand by and do nothing. Big deal: there are dozens of such incidents like that every day in the country - excitable, bigoted people with a tendency to hero-worship demagogues are easily roused but not necessarily notable. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm having a lot of difficulty keeping up with the both of you. My wikipedia time is limited, as is my interest in electronic cigarettes. But I tell you this: there's nothing admins are forced to do, and I for my part will not enforce 3RR to "solve" something like this. Disruption / bad faith is what interests me, and I hope to get a chance today to see who, if anybody, needs a talking-to about that. I'll probably have to give up, though, as whenever I've looked at a given amount of stuff, you've both gone ahead and created three times as much. I get further and further behind, and am frankly tempted to unwatch the page and get on with my life. Anyway, if you want to be blocked over a 3RR vio, you'll have to ask another admin. ;-) Bishonen | talk09:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
No Problem Bishonen, I appreciate that the article, and any form of monitoring work, takes up real effort which we all have a limited amount to devote to wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know as the admin who gave me the initial warnings. Looks like it's being moved to AN and 3RRB now. SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's been moved to WP:Administrators' noticeboard, so somebody else can deal with it. @SPACKlick: The normal way to make amends for breaching the 3RR is to self-revert, even if you think you're correct. If you are correct, somebody else will come along and agree with you. Breaching 3RR is never the right way to make edits on Wikipedia as attempting to force your version by brute force is antithetic to editing here. I see you haven't done that, and I can only say that you're lucky 'Shonen is such a softie. You may not be so lucky at AN. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The report is bouncing back and forth between the two noticeboards. Currently at AN3. No admin seems to want to touch it with a bargepole. Bishonen | talk15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
You've got a mail
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
From reading your talk page, I know that the vol-job of an admin can be a pain. So, thank you for your time. During my block I was working my day job. So it wasn't much I missed out on. After reading about Systematic Bias on WP, I read gender bias on wp. One of the sources available on google [193] discussed racial and gender bias. Others spoke about the lack of available african american and women editors on wp. I saw a stand alone article on gender bias and looked to see if there was on on WP about racial bias. There wasn't and I looked to see if there was reasonable coverage from RS. They existed and I created the article. I was suprised that the article didn't already exist. I can understand an obscure negro leagues player from 50 years ago, but not a well documented study from recent times. My desire is to highlight individuals who made it through the struggle of the civil rights era, while staying within a NPOV. I will periodically write other articles but that is my focus.
I have had people go off on me recently from all directions that other editors took notice [194] while others are openly being uncivl to those who are nice to me [195]. I guess I am not new, but with less than 600 edits total my first 4 years [196], I am not experienced. This year and last year have been my most active years. I am still new to most policies and can't spit them out like many users here. I work with good faith to expand wikipedia but these constant attacks with me just biting my tongue is tiring. If I argue my point, I get rebutted with a policy I never heard of. Very few articles I have been on have not been touched by the same group of wikipedians in some way or manner. They have made it quite difficult. There are some good individuals who are here such as you and others @Stalwart111 and WordSeventeen: . This is way too much work for myself as a volunteer. In the end though, I am cutting down on my total efforts. I am not quitting, just cutting down. I am also saying thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, CrazyAces. I think it's a good plan for you to cut down on your participation — one gets burned-out — and I'm glad you're not quitting. Your kind of focus is needed here. Bishonen | talk17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
Eva Rydberg
Actually found a clip from her 1977 Melodifestivalen performance. It is a funny performance.. and a quite catchy tune.. :D [197].--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine. I'm pretty sure I've seen her doing a Chaplin imitation. I mean, I think that was a thing she did, one of her acts. Presumably she was doing it at Mello. Speaking of Chaplin, did you see Laurel and Hardy in my edit notice? :-) I wonder if I could find a dancing Charlie. Bishonen | talk22:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Ulysses. Can't put the unforgettable fork dance in my edit notice, though. What I need is an animated gif. And how could an animated gif ever do justice to Charlot's physical comedy? There's the rub. Bishonen | talk16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
The Gold Rush is surely out of copyright now, RexxS? Or not? Or do you mean the people who supplied the tool would have copyright in a gif I made? The technicalities would probably overwhelm me in any case, but the next time my family tech visits… hmm… Where do you think I might find a video of Oliver Hardy twirling his tie and tittering? You know, the way he expresses shyness and courtesy in the presence of ladies? Bishonen | talk18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
I don't blame you, Parishan. Wikipedia is a labyrinth altogether, and anything to do with the discretionary sanctions is a morass. I mean, I'm an admin, I've really studied them and sometimes tried to apply them, and the bureaucratic overhead is overwhelming. Bishonen | talk18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Doug. Yeah, I've got an issue from the admin's POV. No, two. You're going to be sorry you asked.
What's the difference between "general" and "discretionary" sanctions, inasmuch as they both seem to be general and also both discretionary, per this page and this page? Why do we need both those pages, with their two different lists of discretionary sanctions that are probably the same sanctions, even though the lists look so different, aqnd why must they both be so thorny and bewildering? If we do need both, can we please complement them with a third page: Discretionary sanctions for dummy admins, corresponding to WP:Simple diff and link guide or Help:Referencing for beginners?
There's too much process. You probably knew that. What, for example, is the deal with logging the sanctions? Before I can sanction a user per the discretionary sanctions, they must have received an alert using a specific template for the subject area. Without the right template, which " expires" after one year, it doesn't count. I'll probably need to add the alert myself, because even though anybody can do it, regular users don't seem keen to become entangled with the mysterious alert templates either — odd, isn't it. Then it used to be that I had to log the alert on the page for the particular decision about the particular discretionary sanctions, but from April 2014 it's different. (OK, I shouldn't be bitter about that, because it's simpler now. I had just begun to grasp the old system, though.) Then I wait to see if disruption continues. If it does, I sanction the user — that's the easy part. And then I log the sanction here. I don't like having to log it. It's not that onerous, I suppose, but it's kind of the last straw. I've thought of suggesting sanctions be logged automagically, like alerts. But no, better not, because the reason there's so much fussing about the form of the alerts is presumably that they have to be machine readable and can thus perform their own automated logging. OK, here's a heretic thought: why log the sanctions at all? Really, what's the sanctions log for? Does somebody use it for something? Is it for the Internet archeologists of the future? Let's put topic bans and page bans into the block log instead, if indeed they need to be logged at all. The block log is as smooth as silk. I like the block log. If the partial bans (I-bans too by all means) were in there as well as blocks, it would be amazingly easy to get a grasp of a user's sanctions history. I assure you that's not the case with the centralized sanctions log. (OT: admittedly we might then need a rule against throwing a user's historical old sanctions in their face without very good reason. But then IMO we already need that rule. For instance, if an RfAR starts inconsequentially with "X has a long block log", as one of 'em currently does, the arbs should at a minimum reprimand the OP.)
Admins aren't all code-loving nerds; they come from all walks of wiki life. I have tried to gradually amass DS-related codes and links and stuff I need on a special page in my userspace (first item in the TOC on this page), and I keep fiddling with it, according as light breaks or darkness falls in some particular regard, or indeed as the instructions fucking change. I have come to hate those very notes of mine, though. If it's possible to sanction a user without consulting them I will always choose to do so. So when is it actually necessary to go via the DS and read up on the codes and the links? I've never seen that stated openly, but it's when I wish to place a topic ban/page ban — I don't have to use the DS to place a block. Click the block button, add a note on the user's page using Twinkle, done. Two-three minutes. Even an indefinite block. Compare the curse-filled half-hour for placing a topic ban, often with a wait of a day or two in the middle (after placing the alert). If I place a long block per my own admin discretion rather than a topic ban per the special discretionary sanctions, the system rewards me. That's not a good thing IMO. Bishonen | talk22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
Can I have your opinion?
What is your opinion regarding an admin using his/her tools to remove their own edit summary, with the rationale "Potentially libelous/defamatory"? Is this permissible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
See [198] and the discussion on the relevant talk page. I can't see the edit summary myself, obviously, but it appears from the discussion to have been a WP:BLP violation - accusing the subject of the article of being a liar. To be clear, I don't want to make a big thing of this, but I think that maybe the admin in question needs to be reminded that BLP policy applies on talk pages, and that admins in particular need to hold to higher standards. Redacting the edit summary might be seen as appropriate, but the admin doing this while leaving accusations of lying on the talk page seems to me to be questionable. From the discussions here [199] on the talk page, and (misplaced) here [200] I get the impression that the admin is rather out of touch with current policy, and might benefit from a little advice from someone more familiar with how things work now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, yes, I see Magioladitis revdel'd their own edit summary after a couple of hours, having thought better of it after User:NeilN and others called them on it. I see them acknowledging the edit summary was a mistake.
The specific problem of revdeling their own edit summary seems fine-drawn to me, if you were worried about that, Andy. Perhaps they should strictly speaking have asked another admin, but what's it matter? It needed to be removed, the sooner the better. But leaving statements like "I think she is a liar" on the talkpage is improper. BLP applies to talkpages. It looks to me, specifically from the discussion on M's own talk, as if they have benefited from the advice of a couple of very experienced editors, but I'll ask them to remove the talkpage stuff as well. Bishonen | talk17:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
The best way to make all other admins look good is to give me my admin tools back. 90 days of MONGO with admin tools and position will set a new standard never to be equalled. First act would be an indefinite block on Jimbob.--MONGO19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Great idea...bypass Rfa and go straight for Rfb! Or better yet...just make me a steward and skip the small stuff. Oh , apologies to Andy for stepping on his post here. Vote MONGO In 2016! Watch out Jimbobby.--MONGO22:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
An RFA or RFB for MONGO. What an outrageous waste of time! Skip those steps and just go right for RFC, which I assume means Request for Chancellorship of Wikipedia. We all end up at RFZ anyway, right? Zad6801:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking a title too...like MONGO The Terrible...though many already may think that anyway, a little reinforcement of my gluttonous manner would not hurt. To be king or Pope even, uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.--MONGO02:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. You recently left an edit here[201] on my talk page asking another editor whether I was a "...reasonable editor". Can I respectfully suggest you form your own opinion of me independently - it may differ markedly from that of the other editor. By the way, I love the dancing Laurel and Hardy!DrChrissy(talk)23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you for your reply. I fear the noticeboards are not the best place to form an opinion about me, having been forced to go to those with a multitude of examples of being provoked. Perhaps a better example would be on the Talk pages of, for example, Dog behaviour. I shall leave you alone with this. You are clearly an intelligent and articulate editor, obviously able to form your own opinion. Happy editing.__DrChrissy(talk)13:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Twirl-a-squirrel
No pants
I was about to gripe about a dinky conflict over wording over at talk:camel toe. But when I was searching the Interwebs for this here squirrel image (*points*) to make an awfully complicated and saucy joke about animals wearing tight clothing, I found this. It could quite possibly be one of the greatest squirrel-related videos ever made.
I'm not sure what you meant by your comments in the edit summary when you reverted my comments here but there was no reason to revert the comments. I offered a simple suggestion that you were free to ignore. You don't have to agree, you don't have to like them, but blindly reverting them simply because you can is unacceptable. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
How do you mean "blindly reverting them because I can"? There was nothing blind about it, and I wrote an explanatory (and also aggrieved) edit summary which apparently you didn't understand. I was referring to the fact that both Beeblebrox and I had asked people to stop posting on RGloucester's page and to post on Beeblebrox's page instead. Did you miss that? Did you just not care? I didn't disagree with your comments, I didn't dislike them — heck, I quite liked them, as comments — what I disliked was where you put them. I even gave you a link in my edit summary to the right place for your comments! So have you moved them to Beeblebrox's page? No, I see you haven't. God, I don't know why I bother.
If it helps, I'm sure you commented about the block in good faith. I have no problem with you, except that you were being so un-noticing of the pleas (for the sake of the very upset user) to leave his talkpage alone, to take comments elsewhere. I'm less sure about the good faith of Tutelary's restoration of your comments. I've asked them what it was supposed to be good for. I could have saved my breath there, too. Bishonen | talk18:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
Thank you and actually no I hadn't noticed that. As an IP I do not have a watchlist so looking for things is fairly deliberate so its easy to miss stuff like that. I still do not agree with locking the talk page down and restricting the talk page as was done but having witnessed Beeblebrox actions in the past I have no desire to interact with them. As an IP I am weak in this culture of Wikidom and Beebs is near as close to the Powerful Wizard of Oz as one can be on this project so their actions are, in the eyes of the culture and their access level, above reproach. I only commented to you because you seemed reasonable in the past and seem to use well thought out and explainable actions (even if the occasional F-bomb is dropped :-)). Not only do I not think commenting on Beeb's talk page would be considered or useful, it would likely lead to this IP being summarily blocked with the justification of Disruption, Socking or whatever other thought popped into their head at the moment. Which I frankly expect to happen by someone anyway regardless. I do not think very highly of their decisions in the past in case its not clear. :-) Sorry if you all are tight, I don't wanna seem like I am disrespecting a "friend", but that is my opinion. Cheers and happy editing! 96.255.237.170 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think most of us observing will understand your point-of-view, 96. (can I call you 96? 96.255.237.170 seems so ... impersonal) But what I'd ask is can you see 'Shonen's point-of-view? She sees a good editor go off the deep end, and reasons that the best thing for that editor would be to step away, take a break, and come back later refreshed. But then his talk page becomes the centre of protracted debate that discusses him and the preceding events. Surely that produces the very opposite effect to "having a break"? I suspect that if you can empathise with 'Shonen's dismay in seeing that, you can sympathise with her request to take the debate somehere - anywhere - else. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries. I do see your point. Like I said its not what I would have done but there is more than one way to do things and there is no reason to dwell on it at this point. If it was up to me we would have all had a Betamax movie player instead of VHS and we probably all know how that worked out.:-) 96.255.237.170 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
IP repeatedly adding incorrect information to multiple articles
Hello Bish. I noticed that you had been active at WP:AIV so would you mind looking at a report I have there? It's an IP repeatedly adding incorrect/false information to multiple articles, and I'm tired of reverting them. Thomas.W talk19:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, thank you, Thomas. Blocked for 31 hours. I suppose it could be a language problem — not understanding the subtleties of the phrasing in the references, nor your explanations. It could of course also be a case of not knowing they have a talkpage. So it goes. Bishonen | talk19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC).
Hallo Bishonen, look at this one...What's that? An orphan article dedicated to a nobel prize winner? Maybe a 1 April joke with 3 weeks delay? Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, nice catch, Alex. Compare Mario Capecchi, the actual Nobel prize winner in question. It's not an April Fool's — it's been sitting on Wikipedia since 6 November 2014! Now deleted, with a polite note to the creator. Bishonen | talk11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
Hello Bish. I reverted the edits by the IP and reported it to AIV. A report I withdrew some 40-50 minutes later since no-one had bothered to do anything about it, even though several other reports had been taken care of. So I'm slowly beginning to lose faith in this project... Thomas.W talk16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thomas, I realise it's frustrating. For myself, I'm not an AIV regular — not sure anybody is — and I never saw your AIV report. But I watch User talk:Favonian and several of the others, and noticed the two related IPs in the histories and did do something: I blocked the 46.14.0.0/20 range. (If you look at your friend 46.14.13.32's contribs page, you'll see my block at the top. That's something of a novelty for rangeblocks, I think — a nice new feature, because you didn't use to be able to see anywhere if a particular IP was rangeblocked.) Bishonen | talk17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
We can hope. It's something of an experiment — the "Block account creation" option is ticked by default, and I don't think I've ever unticked it before. Thanks for your ANI report. Bishonen | talk21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC).
Right. I made a mistake about the range, it should have been 128.231.237.0/28. And then I also missed your note above. Not one of my best days, sorry. See [202] on ANI for more details. Bishonen | talk20:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
The Lady Catherine de Burgh: A statement and legal threat!
My dearest, dearest Mrs Bishonen, I come here to seek shelter from the storm raging over London and my poor defenceless head that's been whipped up by some silly misunderstanding over party politics, Wikipedia and the General Election. So I wish to announce it formally here, that articles in the British press alleging that I am Samantha Cameron's aunt are very wide of the mark. Naturally, Mrs Cameron has on occasion sought my sage advice regarding fashion and beauty, but that is the only reason I have been seen leaving Downing Street so frequently. Whilst there, I have very seldomly advised Mr Cameron and have hardly ever tampered with his Wikipedia article, not even to mention that my beloved grandson (the recently knighted), Sir Mustapha bin Petroleum, has been covertly funding the Conservative party since his schooldays at Eton with dearest David Mr Cameron. Furthermore, repetition of widely misreported allegations claiming that I described Mr Farage an over-opinionated, middle-class wideboy, and Mr Milliband as an unfortunate looking gromit with funny eyes will be met with letters from my solicitors. However, for those many obviously wishing to know and follow my wise advice: on election day, I will be casting my vote for Mrs Clegg - an admirable woman, who Wikipedia's ardent feminists would be well advised to emulate. I wish you all a pleasant day. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: I am now retiring to a safe house (Scrotum Towers, Northamptonshire - admittance £7.50 Monday to Friday) to avoid the paparazzi and unwelcome demands for interviews. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hm, so you are one of those ladies chasing the cavalry? I'm surprised, although doubtless you are an excellent equestrian, m'lady. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush. Dear Lady C, you are so wise, but I remind you that the safest house in these parts is Bishzilla's pocket. Indeed Bishzilla wanted to invite Mr Cavalry, but I've persuaded her it would be a forward thing from a stranger. It didn't take until I assured her that you would say the same — you are her pattern of etiquette! Bishonen | talk09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
Oh that is so nice to know, and a comfort to me as I sit here alone, frightened and with the eyes of the world upon me, knowing that my merest utterance may alter the course of the UK's history for ever. It seems very odd to me, all this fuss about the Cavalry Chasing Man; what if he is a Liberal supporter? It's not as if anyone at all is going to vote for them, and everyone who has a Wikipedia entry has been editing their own pages for ever or paying someone to do it for them. Why even my beloved Giano has been known to fiddle about with his own page and correct some half truths. I'll tell you one thing though: when one has a silly username, and then it's coupled in the national press with ones own name, it must make one wish that one had chosen a more sensible username, Mr Chase Me should change his name to Norman or Kevin or something altogether more sensible, it's not as though he's even in a cavalry regiment - not with that hairstyle anyway. Well my dear, I can't stay here chatting to you all day, David and Samantha are on the phone again seeking wisdom, and I have interviews to grant: the Times this morning over cocktails at the Lanesborough, The Telegraph over luncheon at the Dorchester, and the ghastly Daily Mail for afternoon tea at Claridges, and then that horrendous Daily Mirror are buying me dinner at the Savoy. Oh the trials and tribulations of being centre of world's stage, has a humble woman ever known such hardships. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In the late 19th century, myself and other members of my gromit looking hairy woodland beasts where chased by the calvary nearly to the point of extinction, so I consider this payback!--MONGO12:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah Mongo dear, you and your amazingly brave fellow cowboys have always been swashbuckling heroes to me; although Giano tells me that has all changed since Brokeback Mountain, but I remain an incurable romantic which is why I was so disappointed by Mr Cavalry's pictures in this morning's papers - not at all my mental image of a dashing cavalry officer, but I expect that's the fault of that nasty, sly Mr Blair and all his horrid party's defence cuts. I remember at dear, darling Mr Wales last wedding, when due (I assume) to a glitch in the seating plan, I found myself surrounded by the grandees of the Labour party; Oh how anxious they were to hear my views - I don't think they had the slightest notion themselves of how to run a country, I expect that's why dear Mr Wales sat them with me, so that I could instruct. It's nice that Mr Wales has so many friends in high places, especially if Wikipedia is having a bad press day - they'll soon sort things out. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Being but a lowly woodland beast, the intricacies of politics, especially those beyond the borders of Middle Earth are bewildering to me to say the least. I assume the concern is whether an outside influence ran roughshod over our impeccably perfect system, how to prevent this abborant act from happening ever again and to reclaim the throne of being the sole source of wisdom and knowledge (present company not underrated of course).--MONGO13:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But that is the million dollar question: did an outside influence run roughshod over our impeccably perfect system? Or did someone want to make it look like an outside influence had run roughshod over our impeccably perfect system? Politics is a very dirty business, and it's a game not just played by signed up politicians. Giano(talk)13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Roughshod or horseshoed...could be either or both. Like myself, Wikipedia is but a pawn in the game of life, but we are graced with the near divine presence of the fine lady Catherine nonetheless. Fine fellow Giano, in the course of my ramblings through this penultimate compendium of knowledge I came across the interesting Swannanoa (mansion), where once again, the quasi-barbaric and unoriginal Americans, shall we say, stole, yet another inspiration for architectural excellence from the civilized Europeans. A few decent images and a fine little abode but barely a hundred years since construction and my understanding it has already fallen into disrepair. References are scanty as I already checked. It would hardly qualify as a suitable privy for the fine Lady Catherine, but might do in a pinch.--MONGO14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I joined Wikipedia a couple of weeks back via the mobile app but forgot that I did. So when I tried to create an account from my computer I received the following message:
Cannot create account
Account creation from IP addresses in the range 59.178.192.0/19, which includes your IP address (59.178.193.179), has been blocked by Bishonen.
The reason given by Bishonen is Disruption at Viresh Pratap Chaudhry. There's obviously one person behind all those IPs, and with the user talk constantly changing, there's no talking with them. Please use your account!
Anyway, I was able to login from the computer, using my existing credentials, after verifying on the mobile app that I am indeed a member. However, I was wondering why my IP was blocked. I have no connection with the person who disrupted the Viresh Pratap Chaudhry page, nor I have engaged in any user talk prior to now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongoffe (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hi, Dongoffe, I'm sorry about that. I blocked the range because a whole crowd of IPs from it had edited the Viresh Pratap Chaudhry article in a non-useful way. I had a notion (which has now been confirmed) who was behind those IPs and basically wanted to make them log in to their account. It was a very new user, editing logged out by accident. I hoped there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but I see it happened, unfortunately. Please accept my apologies, and I'm glad you found your original account. I've unblocked the range. Bishonen | talk09:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen, there seems to be a disagreement between me and user Inhakito who made an edit that doesn't seem to add up to anything and constantly keeps reinserting it without giving a specific reason. I was hoping you could help to resolve this, Thank you. (N0n3up (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
There was a distinct lack of discussion from either of you, but Inhakito was in my view quite right: a figure of 300 "minority language" Swedes in Estonia is irrelevant. I doubt the figure is even accurate in the first place. There are most likely a minimum of that number of Swedes in every other European country (except toy countries like Lichtenstein).
We already purged Estonia from the list of countries in Swedish language, and it seems appropriate we do something similar to Swedes.
Wow, that's some edit war. Thanks for warning the users, User:Peter Isotalo. N0n3up, you're both edit warring. I frankly don't understand why you keep telling the other user to take it to the talkpage; why don't you start a discussion there yourself? I can't exactly help you resolve the matter of fact, because I don't know much about the subject; all I can do is protect the page from editing on a random version, which I've done (four days), to encourage talkpage discussion. That said, I have two more points: though I hate blocking good-faith users, I will block you both if the edit war should resume when the protection expires. Please read up on the "bright-line" WP:3RR rule; it's policy. And secondly, I know just enough about Swedish linguistics to know that Peter Isotalo is an specialist on it, so if it was me I'd listen carefully to what he says. Bishonen | talk17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) I couldn't resist taking a look at it, and what I found was N0n3up repeatedly adding dubious material, sourced to a dead link plus a link to the web site of the Swedish embassy in Brazil, where I can't find any mention of the total number of Swedes in the broadest sense of it in Brazil (all I found was a mention of there being "a few thousand" Swedish citizens in Brazil, which is very far from the 32,000+ repeatedly added). So I would have reverted the edit too, just like Inhakito has done. I wouldn't have edit-warred over it, though, but the material added clearly fails WP:V. Thomas.W talk19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thomas.W, I just found out about this right now after viewing the source I added. I took the source from the Swedish version of the article thinking that it would contain valuable information, which which turned out to be defunct. The reason I overly reverted Inhakito was because his edits were very extensive which I thought were unnecessary. User:Peter Isotalo made an edit in regards to the error which I thought would finish the problem, even though Inhakito contantly made edits to the page. Like Peter said before, I think the problem was the lack of communication. (N0n3up (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC))
Thanks, N0n3up. That sounds like there might not be much need for protection any more? But I'd really like to see some sort of input on the article's talkpage, not here on mine, before I lift it. It hasn't been edited since November 2014. OK, somebody will either have to say something on talk, or you can all wait for the protection to expire in 3 days. Pinging @Inhakito, Peter Isotalo, and Thomas.W:Bishonen | talk16:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
@Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: It has been brought to my attention that there has been a lot of activity at User talk:CrazyAces489. Not only from editors who have been involved with CrazyAces489 previously, but from other editors since the unblock. When I got to the page, I noticed the editor has been involved in multiple disputes including an edit war which EdJohnston warned both users about. It would seem another editor was having a similar dispute separate of the ANI. Looking a bit up the page it looks like Bearian and Carrite had some followup about actions at Crispus Attucks, namely that it was nominated for AFD by CrazyAces489. The unblock was seemingly conditional on leaving serious accusations and the battleground mentality at the door. I would appreciate your comments and insights before continue to review the matter. Mkdwtalk18:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Mkdw, I took the weekend off. CrazyAces489 has been given a lot of extra chances because the subjects he edits are important for Wikipedia from a systemic bias point of view, and also, at least by me, because I think he does mean well, and means to improve the encyclopedia. Both those things weighed with me when I unblocked. But unfortunately it looks like we've reached the end of the road. I'm sorry to have to recommend an indefinite block, with the usual after six months. Thanks for consulting me. I'm pinging @Nyttend and EdJohnston: too. Bishonen | talk18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
The editing of User:CrazyAces489 does cause concerns. I think an indefinite block with the usual review after six months is an option to consider. But before anyone does that, a good summary of the problem ought to be prepared. For example, a list of all the past discussions including:
For reference, the complete list of all occurrences of CrazyAces' name at admin boards is returned by this search string. I notice that User:TheGracefulSlick was recently blocked 48 hours for canvassing as described at ANI and somebody should figure out if that has any bearing on CrazyAces489's situation. As you may be able to tell, I haven't been following the case closely and wouldn't be issuing a block myself, due to lack of enough study. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I got notice my name appeared here. I was unblocked shortly afterwards, I should note. I will not express an opinion on the CrazyAces situation, but I will say he is causing issues. User:Softlavender thought some sort of action should be taken, and that should be considered as she is much more experienced than me. But the block was directly involving CrazyAces if that was the point of my message, and the users thought his edit warring was a part of the reason to unblock me. I can comment more if anyone has questions. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2015
@Nyttend, Bishonen, and EdJohnston: Hey, I was out most of the day today. So, I wasn't able to see all the posts going on. I noticed I was pinged in a lot of conversations. I have actually stayed away from a lot of the problem area articles where I was active on (martial arts) as I had strong opinions. I was more active on RSN [203]. This was very helpful in that I identified sources that were not considered to be reliable. Now, TGS believes that I had some sort of agenda against him because I nominated a few articles he questioned for deletion and stated some of the sources he used was questionable. If that was the case, @Mdtemp, Papaursa, and PRehse: would seem to have the same agenda against me, and @Niteshift36: for deleting a number of sources I used as not being reliable. I see the job they (Mdtemp|Papaursa|PRehse|Niteshift36) are doing and for the most part see that they made an effort to only keep strong articles on wikipedia. I simply followed their own method and used RSN as a guide. If I believed an article wasn't notable, I nominated it for AFD (especially if the sources were highly questionable). I always asked before removing as you can see here. [204] TGS, has referred to me as a sockpuppet [205], made personal insults [206] has followed me around WP [207] after I asked him not to post on my talk page [208] he still does [209]. He rants about me on AFD's [210][211] and RSN [212] . I went to 3rr notice board [213] and AN/I [214] to try to solve some problems. I was previously blocked for putting up a statistic that I found questionable on one occasion [215] but the actions of TGS aren't inferred, they are directly giving strong opinions and a violation of WP:Civil as seen in the few previous sentences. I put in tags of African American's in a few articles and it is removed numerous times [216][217] . I was really trying to help the project. I was really tired of the battles before, but this has gotten ridiculous. I am burned out. I was already tired in April and still created 40 short articles on some historically important individuals of underreprestend groups [218] . These few more articles brought my total articles created for the year to [219] to over 100. I mean honestly, who was bringing forth articles that could help WP grow in under developed areas like Racial bias on Wikipedia or HBCU Closure Crisis or even Discrimination in bar exam. Things that are necessary to understand some repressed groups in the United States. I have been approached many times about my nomination for AFD for Crispus Attucks, but that way my interpretation of the WP:ONEEVENT policy on wikipedia. I was getting constantly addressed about it. [220]. In the end, there were a few articles I wanted to finish off, but I am done. This is volunteer work to me. I wanted to improve what was offered to the world on wikipedia but not at the cost of my own stress levels. I wish you all the best. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@CrazyAces489: much of the conflict you've endured has been largely attributed to your battleground mentality. It's not common to be the subject of focus at several ANIs; be blocked; engage in edit wars, and to be the centre of so much controversy with so many editors in such a short period of time. In looking back at your edit history, some of the actions are arguably pointy after having unfavourable outcomes in other discussions. You've sought things like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL for yourself yet ignored them other times towards others. Some of the messages that you've cited as "personal attacks" are more about your conduct and not your character of being. There is no policing Wikipedia for what your interpretations of truth. We must all work together and through consensus find what is notable and worthy of inclusion and what should be removed. As you've discovered, your interpretations on the application of the policies has differed, sometimes greatly, from others or the status quo. You jumped first into cleanup tasks like articles to AFD, placing notability tags, open SPI against those you've disagreed with at AFD, incorrectly applying orphan tags before learning or discussing the relevant policies and guidelines which has been viewed by some as disruptive. If you should return, I would largely encourage you to approach editors in discussion and review thoroughly the relevant policies and guidelines before making significant and impactful changes to the article space. As you've seen, doing the opposite invites conflict. I generally see a rough consensus that an indefinite block with the standard offer after 6 months would have likely been implemented. Blocking is preventative, not punitive, so I am recommending no action be taken since you've stated your intention to retire. That being said, consider this conversation and the statements above as the equivalent of a block on your record. Should you choose to return, know that you will be on a much shorter rope. Mkdwtalk02:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Papaursa and TheGracefulSlick: I'm inclined to wait and see if CrazyAces489 can contribute in a meaningful way now that they've taken a break. The one month away will be counted as a block and they will be a afforded a very short rope over the next while. I know this can be frustrating for the editors whom have had previous interactions but this option and benefit of the doubt would be the high road. It would not have been implausible that the second block would have only been for a month as opposed to an indefinite block. In any case, blocks are preventative, not punitive, so if it wasn't implemented at the time of his "retirement" then that was the only time it would have been appropriately applied. Mkdwtalk04:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well to be blunt he never retired even temporarily. The account NegroLeagueHistorian was created almost immediately and clearly is the same person. That said both those edits and the recent CrazyAces489 edits are not stuck in the battleground mentality so the purpose of 'the block that did not happen' appears to be served. A step back was needed but I personally don't care how that step was made.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned you in an unblock request comment
Hi. I mentioned you here. I pinged you in the discussion, but I've seen enough reports lately of pings not working for whatever reason, that I thought I'd better alert you directly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, it gave me support that was much appreciated at the time, that I wasn't the only one with reservations about the original block. (And actually, I had noted the unblock in the same section, albeit a different subsection, before creating a duplicate bottom-of-the-page section for clarity.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The first of them was posted one minute before mine. Albeit, indeed. Different section and different subsection are all the same: it means the other person doesn't get an edit conflict. Never mind, I don't seem to be able to make myself understood. Forget it. Bishonen | talk23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
There's a tension between attempting to stop canvassing and not biting new editors. The former is a real problem because canvassing is clearly beneficial to the editor - you can't "uncanvass" people who have received non-neutral notices, while there are few sanctions available to discourage the practice (since a preventative block can't prevent what's already happened). In my experience, most canvassing takes place without any repercussions on the canvasser, possibly because admins feel that a block is not an appropriate response, especially to an experienced editor. In fact this block is the only one that I can recollect specifically for canvassing. Sadly it was enforced on a relative newcomer who actually could be forgiven for not knowing the boundaries when notifying other editors about a debate that they were heavily invested in. It doesn't help the general problem of canvassing, of course, but IMHO you did the right thing in this case. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The indefinitely blocked POV-pusher Spalagdama is back again. I thought I recognised the style when I encountered a POV-pusher about ten days ago, making unsourced edits on articles relating to the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan from a number of IP-addresses geolocating to Zambia, IPs that my gut feeling told me were proxies. A bunch of articles were protected then, protection that has now expired, enabling the same POV-pusher to make the exact same edits again, but now from an IP in the US that was used by Spalagdama in 2013 (Special:Contributions/76.97.177.227, look at the IP's earlier contributions...). Making the exact same type of edits that Spalagdama made, on the same articles that Spalagdama targeted... Thomas.W talk04:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right, that was the editor with the interesting comments about "blocked user Thomas. W". ;-) I can't tell.. very confusing subject area. Tom, do you think you can provide a couple of recent diffs by 76.97.177.227 with an explanation of how they're nationalistic/biased in the same way Spalagdama's editing was? Bishonen | talk16:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
I'll dig out some diffs of edits made through the Zambian IPs, but it's not only that the edits and the targeted articles are the same, he's been posting from the exact same IP-address as Spalagdama used (the 76.* above; as can be seen in Spalagdama's SPI) for the past four days ([221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]). Maybe someone blocked his usual proxies? The same totally unsourced POV edits as Spalagdama made and the Zambian IPs have made, removing all mention of India and Hindus and much of the focus on Afghanistan, and putting almost all focus on Pakistan. And the Pashtu language, including a totally own theory about the Greeks that ruled that part of the world 2,000 years ago got many words from Pashtu (including the title Gondphares, as can be seen in the diffs), a language that AFAIk didn't exist back then. Thomas.W talk17:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My laptop ground to a halt because of lack of memory as I was writing my previous post, causing a lot of typos, but I'm back now. If you compare Spalagdama's contributions to the 76.* IP's contributions it's easy to see that they have edited the same articles, and if you look at the page history of Gondophares you'll see the 76.* continuing the work of the Zambian IPs, making the exact same edit time and time again ([228], [229], [230], [231]), like a machine. The first three of those IPs geolocate to Zambia and the fourth one, the 76*, to the US. Thomas.W talk17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
And this diff shows Spalagdama making the same claim about "Gondophares" being a Hellenisised version of Pashto "Gandapur" as in the four previous diffs, even though the the wording is different. A claim that is totally unsourced. If you want more diffs I'll get more diffs for you, but IMHO that ought to be enough to connect them all to each other. The Zambian IPs only made a couple of edits each, before switching to a new IP, so it's difficult to find them all, he has also been targeting a very large number of articles. During the two weeks since I (more or less) returned I have reverted that kind of edits, made through Zambian IPs, on more than a dozen articles, all of them articles that have been on my watchlist since Spalagdama's days, but there must be many more of them. Because of the IP-hopping it's totally impossible to find them all, though. Thomas.W talk17:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Right. Thank you. 76.* is supposed to be dynamic, but it doesn't look much like it, does it? I've blocked it for 3 months. If you have some of the Zambian IPs handy, please shoot them over and I'll check if a rangeblock might be suitable. Bishonen | talk18:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
Never mind, I see a few of them in your diffs. I guess it's pretty useless to block them, but please let me know if the Zambian proxies start up again. Bishonen | talk18:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
Have a deleted cupcake, Lil Heim! [Goes to read.] Yes, the deleted one was a high point. Besides your cupcakes, I especially liked the comment by, I think, a one-time admin: "This RfC is not about a grudge. How can it be, when this is the 4th RFC against this admin? There must be something up, if RfCs keep getting created." But I took a look at the whole set and felt a little embarrassed that it looked more like "Come see my cupcakes" than "I'm all about transparency", you know? All is vanity. Also, the whole user RfC thing is historical now, so there won't be any more cupcakes. Wait, if I'm RFAR'd, will you promise to come give me cupcakes? Don't speak lightly, because I'll hold you to it! Bishonen | talk08:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC).
Congratulations! When one is equally loathed by all sides, one obtains Enlightenment. For your suffering, and attaining Nirvana, as official dispenser of Karma on Wikipedia I hereby grant you the right to come back in your next life as someone who has not even heard of Wikipedia. You're welcome. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You got off lightly, Eric. But rather than bother 'Shonen with such mundane tasks, I'll be happy to tell LB to fuck off from your talk page, should that occur in future. --Famously Sharp (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Were you, Eric? I didn't see your shitty edit summary until later, and so to my regret I answered you civilly. In my defence, I've removed my reply from the page now. From one specialist in offending both sides to another, Floquenbeam: thank you. And just think what it would have been like if I'd unblocked Lightbreather, as I planned this morning because she was being accused of the wrong thing. I put her unblock request on hold and everything, before being trampled by a stampede of outraged oversighters. Bishonen | talk19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).
No, not really, but it was the unexpected strength of your language that prompted my edit summary. Anyway, what's done is done. I think what was also at the back of my mind was LB's new Systers-Wikipedia, which I know is nothing to do with you. EricCorbett19:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr Corbett, I can assure you that my dear friend is not part of any 'sisterhood', while I have often considered taking the veil myself, poor Mrs Bishonen (with her unladylike language) is totally unsuited to life of blameless and praying devotion. All this public Wikipedia-brassiere burning seems to be bringing out the worst in people and I'm not talking about unsightly flopping about - I see not the need for it: I know very few women who don't always have the upper hand - Giano's wife for instance is very domineering, but then she's foreign and all foreign women are bossy, so I don't see the need for this demonstrative women's lib and most of these liberating women here are American, and they all predatory with terrifying white teeth and very loud voices; one only has to watch my favourite TV show to know that, and also that most of them have the diction and modulation of an electric potato peeler so are quite capable of making their feelings known. Mrs Bishonen does not fit this category at all. So Mr Corbett, you must follow my good example and not make sweeping statements and lambasting Mrs B because it causes offence, and an offended woman can be a very nasty thing to deal with and a mere man (like you) won't stand a chance. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
heeheehee...diction and modulation of an electric potato peeler...MONGO agree and slogs away back to his troll hole for more popcorn....and cheap beer.--MONGO08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this will make you feel better but I just read a thread at WO asking who the "decent" admins were and you were on the list as one. Predictably, for that forum, it was a short list. LizRead!Talk!20:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I was kind of wondering who that new poster to that list was myself. But I think that it might be worth noting that not only was Bish on that rather short list, I think she was one of the few who was included more than once. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Sisterhood is one of the sis... I mean partner projects of the Gay Agenda, right?
Nothing to worry about, but have mentioned you here as the same disruptive editor that you blocked a year ago is back, evading their block and edit warring to readd the same material to the Medvedev article. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bring the nightmares back. He's persistent if nothing else, but hopefully the protection will put him off. Valenciano (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of yogurt by adding {{subst:Yogurt}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give yogurt out liberally to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Most kind, Berean Hunter, but I like my memory for crazed POV-pushers as bad as possible, I'm happier that way! I'll just eat the raspberry, piece of peach (mango?) and the very cute lemon balm leaf, thank you. Bishonen | talk08:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC).
As long as you curtseyed, it's probably all right. The trouble is, nothing's polite or clear if the user doesn't even know she has a talkpage. Hopefully my block will get her attention. Bishonen | talk08:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. - I don't know what a ping does to y user who hasn't discovered her talk yet. I remember my first ping (then the orange bar) very well, it pointed out nomination to DYK, and I had no idea what DYK means nor of "my nomination". I found out that the nice person who had helped me to get my first deleted article undeleted then also nominated it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Rajput
Thanks for spotting that. I'd just crafted a report for AN3, went to check some edit history and saw the block. I don't think the problem is likely to go away once the block expires: they're caste-warring/puffing and I'm afraid that in my experience those contributors to India-related articles who have "history", "truth" or "scholar" in their usernames have thus far only been interested in revisionism, puffery and brainwashing. All the past ones ended up indef'd or topic banned. It would be nice to be proven wrong this time, obviously, but I'm not going to be holding my breath when the current block ends. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, caste SPAs rarely come to a good end. I could see you had good reason to revert, Sitush, but you want to be careful about reverting so many times in a brief span yourself. I don't think counting reverts is the perfect way to assess a conflict — kind of limited — but some admins at AN3 might. Not that you exceeded the bright line, of course, but still. Bishonen | talk20:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
I understand but it has been going on for weeks, with the latest burst starting on 1 May and involving another contributor also. I'm not one for messing around in situations like this and I know a warrior when I see one. That was so obviously wrong: removal of well- and multi-sourced statements on the basis of personal knowledge, ludicrous accusations of sockpuppetry, attempts to play the semantics game etc. It is a pattern they have engaged in pretty much from the get-go (apart from the sock allegation). Any admin who blocks me for that at AN3 would find the block overturned within hours, if not minutes. I'd wager they're (the scholar) gone within three months, probably much less. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I didn't mean to suggest an AN3 admin might have blocked you as well; no; what I was thinking was they might have fullprotected the article for a while instead of blocking anybody. Which would have been less useful IMO. For the benefit of any possibly block-reviewing admin, I made a point of mentioning stuff other than just the reverting in my block notice. Bishonen | talk20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
Gouncbeatduke Wikihounding
Bishonen, since you are familiar with Gouncbeatduke and his behavior, and the admin I initially brought this to attention to[232] - Cailil - is on some kind of leave for the month, thought you could assist with this matter.
I'd appreciate if you could advise Gouncbeatduke not to stalk my edits. The limited amount of edits he does are directed to editing articles I've recently edited (a number of which are wholly non-IP related) which he has never edited himself. In just the past week, just see the following:[233][234]. I don't know if some sanctions are necessary or some kind of interaction ban, but it is very unseemly. Appreciate your consideration. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Gouncbeatduke is now implying that on the subject of Iran and nuclear proliferation, I'm engaged in "Islamophobic and POV-pushing editing"[236] (this followed his Wikihounding here[237]. There has to be some kind of recourse for these gross personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF. This is exactly the kind of behavior that led you blocking him previously[238]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Plot Spoiler, I don't have the time either, and I'm not much good with the subjects you both edit. My original block was very, very easy to place, as G had made outrageous attacks right at ANI — I positively saw red when I saw him accuse editors of being in cahoots with Jarlaxle. Researching the editing pattern that you describe is a much bigger deal, and not something I can undertake at this time, unfortunately. I have to suggest you take it to ANI, unless one of my nice talkpage stalkers would like to take a look. Bishonen | talk20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
Thank you for commenting at the case, a rather unpleasant place. I deeply apologise for pulling you over there. In consolation, I present some masterwort, a lovely flower which can be used to flavour some rather fine schnapps, if you're ever in the Ziller valley in Austria. WormTT(talk) 10:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Now, normally, I would think that surely the Wikipedian who added those sections must have plagiarized Ms. Smith; however, with self-published ebooks, it is harder to tell.
If the Wikipedia article is indeed plagiarized, I am willing to fix it; however, I thought you could find out who has sinned against whom.
Thanks for trying, but yes, it's in my raw watchlist. And every now and then I unwatch and then rewatch the page, and I think that has sometimes helped for a few days — unless I'm not remembering it right — but then it backslides. I'm kind of losing faith in it. Bishonen | talk18:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC).
Catching up
This is for you, too; I won't belabor the point, but I'm thinking of all of you, and so sorry all of that happened. I pinged you jokingly yesterday (to delete an RFA on me put up without my knowledge) before I discovered this, and decided you might not be in the mood for humor. (I also pinged you in an SPI I submitted, but I never know if those pingie thingies work.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Intervention
What an unexpected surprise. One of the clerks at the ArbCom case had suggested that I request some routine administrator action...but I thought a personal "last ditch" effort would be more friendly and possibly Peace-making. As you most likely saw on your visit, another editor has a different opinion of my actions. Anyway, TY for your time. . Buster Seven Talk20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Question
I would like to know how to stop people from using original research. I see you blocked the ip that was edit warring with Acidsnow [240]. He/she had legitimate concerns about users failing to provide reliable sources for their edits. Can you atleast warn Acidsnow to stop including unsourced information?
Zekenyan (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not well at home in the subject or the conflicts surrounding it — you'd better ask an admin who has followed AcidSnow's editing and your own. I see several admins in your talkpage history, for example. Me, I was merely placing a common or garden "abusing multiple accounts" block against a disruptive IP. Bishonen | talk18:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
A note that will probably make you question the meaning of WP:BURO
Hi Bishonen. Thank you for your recent edits to the Lightbreather arbitration case evidence page. However, (and this will sound bureaucratic but sadly necessary) only arbitrators and arbitration clerks acting in their official capacity may edit evidence sections that do not belong to them. I haven't reverted your edits, but please understand that making those kinds of edits puts us in a bit of a touch spot regarding whether to revert the obviously constructive edits or whether to set a precedent of allowing non-clerks to edit others' evidence sections. In the future, the best approach is to point out the problem on the evidence submitter's talk page. (For the bureaucratic side, this is a formal request in my capacity as an arbitration clerk.) Thank you for your understanding :) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What you need to do, L235, is to take ownership of 'Shonen's edits yourself by finishing off the job of tidying HiaB's diffs. There's guidance available to help you at WP:Simple diff and link guide (a topic where 'Shonen has indisputable expertise). If HiaB didn't know how to format the diffs in submitting them, there's little point in aggravating him by posting on his talk page about it, so I can't say I'd agree with your suggested approach as being the "best". It's one of those cases where demonstrating the right way is far easier than trying to explain it, and the obvious bureaucracy of "not editing others' evidence sections" where it's only a matter of correcting malformed diffs flies in the face of common sense. With all due respect, RexxS (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thank you for your thoughts. I won't respond to the part about aggravating HiaB as that is an area that may compromise the neutrality of the clerks; however, if you believe it is unlikely an editor would approve of your edits to their section, common sense dictates that you not make the edits. In any case, unfortunately, it's a fact that arbitration cases are bureaucratic. In an area where there are angry, distraught, and stressed editors making accusations against other angry, distraught, and stressed editors, rules must be followed to the letter, no matter how silly they may seem or how IAR-worthy each individual edit is. (see also Slippery slope.) This reply was not approved by the Committee or the clerk body as a whole, just a note made in my own capacity as a clerk, and the substance of this message may be disputed either to the clerk body as a whole (to WP:ACCN or clerks-llists.wikimedia.org) or to the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your understanding. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Regrettably, L235, I was in a hurry, or I would have let Bishzilla do it. She has been doing little fixes to ArbCom pages for years, and nobody has ever complained. I assure you the Lightbreather case evidence is far from the first example, but I'll just point you to her work there so far: [241][242][243] Go tell 'Zilla arbitration cases are bureaucratic, mmm? I hope she's in a good mood, that's all. If you check her page, you can see I've already tried telling her she's not really supposed to be a "superclerk". She wouldn't eat me, but as you see, she rudely ignored me. I won't answer for what might happen to someone else. PS, Rex, I didn't set out to tidy all Hell in a Bucket's diffs — that would be annoying pedantry — only the one's that actually didn't work. That's why the excess brackets are still there. (There, now I've pinged the evidence submitter.) Bishonen | talk07:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC).
Say nothing it's often best ;). Thank you Bishonen I appreciated the help on the links, i'm not great at the coding part so if you explain what else needs to be corrected I can do it.
L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
A sincere thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
You mustn't leave the "u" in "colour" if you're an American, that's all. <beat> :-) Oh, and also, some templates hate equals signs, they need to be replaced by = Bishonen | talk06:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, good idea. Lots of stuff does contain equals signs, though, notably diffs, and I nearly always seem to want some diff or other in my divboxes. So I was very pleased when I got the tip about encoding the =. Bishonen | talk13:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC).
The documentation needs examples really to maximise the teaching process. If you have multiple '=' in your content, it's probably quicker to just use the parameter number |3=, so for Ched's box you could write:
{{divbox|purple|Sadness|3=I'm sad that [[User:Giano|Giano]] and his aunt have left the project. Much of the color has gone out of Wikipedia for me. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 18:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) }}
See how the '3=' goes in front of the content. Once that is there you can have as many '=' in the content as you like. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
:-D @Roxy's edit summary. Mystifying about Laurel and Hardy, sorry! You can create your own editnotice here and put in dancers, Roxy, or barking dogs. (For anybody who is mystified by this note, just try to edit my page and you'll see the energetic Laurel and Hardy dance.) Bishonen | talk09:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC).
Toe of the Almighty Camel has responded to the username issue and does not appear willing to change his/her name. Ironically, he/she also edited Camel Toe and I recommend looking at it since he/she reverted my edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Toe of the Almighty Camel I'd appreciate if you would not stalk me wherever I go. Telling me I shouldn't ask for an admin's opinion doesn't even make sense. And I don't need your WP, especially since you, yourself, hardly follow them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
BeastBoy3395 sock?
Hi Bish. I have a strong suspicion that the latest troll that you have been dealing with is a sock of BeastBoy3395. The level of obvious trolling, cloying unblock requests and tag teaming on Ben Carson seem to add up to a quack. Not that they won't be blocked again shortly anyway, but what do you think?- MrX19:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh I didn't even see that until just now, but something definitely seemed very wrong with that account. --Rschen775419:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Rajput edits
dear sir please look at the article Rajput and see [here] did I do a POV pushing? I have only expanded the article in line with Britannica!! how can it be a POV. Don't you think that Britannica is ultimate authority for a controversial article like Rajput? please stop this situshian point of view which is neither getting into details nor considering Britannica only to assert himself. Rajput334 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, User:Rajput334. I see you asked Sitush in your latest edit summary to "kindly not undo again, if you have to discuss some conflict then do it on talk page", but I'm afraid you have that backwards; you boldly added content and had it reverted (by two different users), so you're the one who needs to take it to talk to try to get consensus, and meanwhile, to not revert again. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, a widely accepted essay which describes your situation exactly. Currently nobody's discussing on talk: you should start.
As for Britannica as a source, encyclopedias are tertiary sources. This means they summarize primary and secondary sources. They can be used, but primarily for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources".[244] The problem with the way you use Britannica is that you use it instead of a whole raft of secondary sources (the best kind of source), which you remove, along with the content they support (Rajput—Mughal marriages). Please see Sitush's edit summary here: "Please find a secondary source to replace Britannica". I have to agree. Bishonen | talk12:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC).
I'll find secondary sources when I am free but please look how Sitush's edit is not supported by Britannica. Sitush is asserting that some Rajput enter into marriage alliance for political purpose while Britannica says Akbar adopted this policy and it also states how and why. I had added the date when most of the rajputs accepted Akbar as overlord, that is also removed. I had reasoned through source why Rajputs were inclined to Marathas that is also removed. I had added the date when Rajputs accepted British supremacy, that is also removed. Rajput334 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You still seem to think that Britannica outranks the reliable secondary sources you removed. I tried to explain above that it doesn't; I don't know how to put it any more clearly. I don't know why the date for accepting British supremacy was removed — possibly because it goes in the next section, "British colonial period"? But you should discuss these things with Sitush and other editors on the article talkpage, not with me — I'm no specialist on this history. (Note, discuss on article talk: don't post on User talk:Sitush. Considering your history there,[245] please stay away from his page.)
Incidentally, a detail I noticed: you changed "subsequently they finally accepted the supremacy of British Raj" to "subsequently they finally accepted the supremacy of British". Because of the year being wrong for the Raj — I understand that — but using British is just really, really poor linking. Please click on British and see. In fact, please click on all links in Preview before you save them; it's best practice and helps avoid nonsense links like that. Bishonen | talk12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC).
OMG. Thanks, Ncmvocalist. Yes, I'm aware of the earlier context, but it'll have to be tomorrow. Please notify Bunchofgrapes — he has left, but he may still have an e-mail alert on his talk — and I'll see if I can reach him on chat. Tomorrow. Bishonen | talk23:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC).
Best to bear in mind the effect of a blanket oppose versus an oppose you wouldn't be prepared to compromise without conditions being involuntarily imposed for x duration. If there is a consensus for an unban for instance, then the former has no use and the latter could be of significant relevance. But this is more of an observation overall. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I arrive too late too soon
Hello. I am not a new user.
I am an expert, in fact, on late 17th century to early 18th century British topics. I imagine that is all I need to say. It is sad indeed that Giano has gone away, but I have had Thoughts on such topics before. As it is, I'm willing to poke at some of the more wobbly articles, but I'm not sure I'll write much, though much still needs to be written. For example, someone was in the process of ensuring that every Dunce had a biography at one time, and that project never got completed. Who will memorialize Jemy Moore now? Of course the moment Randy in Boise tries to treat me like an employee again or a group of maladaptive, maladroit, endlessly self-inflating mandarins begin to sermonize (or Simonize) on process, I'll wordlessly go back to my actual job. It pays almost as much as Wikipedia contributing does. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I will try to notice. (I've two weeks before I'm back in... at work. . . dining out, but it's a set of restaurants I've eaten at many times before.) If you want to see an utter mess, look at John Bunyan. The writing is as much fanboy as Britney Spears once was -- or. . . who was the sister of the pop tart that a Wikipedian was absolutely abscessed with? Jessica Simpson's sister, I think, and a Wikipedian had a "sincere" interest in everything pertaining to her. Well, Bunyon is the lodestone of the home schooling movement in America. Therefore editions of Pilgrim's Progress are getting the A-Bekka treatment (pure hagiography followed by impure hagiography). Therefore, an avid author has written repeatedly about what "John" did next and how "John" was persecuted, etc.
I have spent a decade now living in the 1580's, you see, so I'm feeling quite close to Hooker, Whitgift, and the like. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I am noticing. Welcome back, Hithladaeus. I think it's only John Bunyan #Legacy that really needs some cleaning. "The tercentenary of Bunyan's birth in 1628 was celebrated in 1928" - a good year to pick, don't you think? --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick copy-edit to that sentence, but didn't have time to go through the article at all. Feel free to revert at will if it's not to your liking. — Ched : ? 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, y'all. In fact, after, as an anon, I wrote a bit of a philippic on the article's talk page, several people jumped in. It's much better already than it was.
What I was getting at is that Wikipedia, someone used to warn, was being used to fight political causes via edits. Someone used to say, to no avail, that we had full-time editors with wonderful English who consistently did very subtle edits to pages to provide national and nationalist points of view. Opponents from other nations would typically be less well spoken in English and would be accused of "uncivil" language, and people would side with a group that appeared to be professional information officers. Since those days, The New York Times and several online journals have covered the fact that -- golly! -- that someone had been correct: there were professional information officers from several nations waging war on WP.
Well, on a much lower level American culture wars are fought over and with Wikipedia pages. That's not news. Everyone knows that obvious targets are obviously targeted. However, I have been living in the 1560's to 1580's for the last decade. I have been living in the Puritan Remonstrances redux. I have learned what they learn, how they learn it, and what they think.
It would never occur to anyone that John Bunyon would be an article to mangle, but Bunyon is now at the heart of home schooling. He is now Important, and he has to be protected from people saying "bad" things about him (you know -- bad things, like historical context). It is important that we not point out any places where Pilgrim's Progress is at variance with Protestant theology or interpretations of the text that see it as an embodiment of quietism.
Y'all are already doing great stuff with making his article sound like a real article. I'm barred from doing much better until I can get at a nDNB. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
For other reasons, certainly. More information is better than less. There are some biographies that are better in the old than the new. I think this article needs the NDNB, per below, but yes. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Or just ask me to get you the ODNB article. Or, if you are in the UK (doesn't matter whereabouts) sign up for the Manchester Libraries Online Access thing, which is free and gives access to ODNB and a few other things. All this said, I'd be surprised if the ODNB can add anything that is not already said in the Bunyan article. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Sitush, have people here cottoned onto the fact that all of the Old Bailey is now online and free of use? It's an extraordinary research tool. This means that anyone who was arrested and tried at London's principal court, 1679-1774, has his or her trial available for an Internet search. [[246]] is the home page. We're all waiting for the day that the records available to the web go back farther and forward more, but it's still a remarkable tool. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Great for genealogists, not so great for Wikipedia - legal papers are almost always dodgy as sources. I am pleased to see that it is free: I think it scandalous that ProQuest got the deal for the Parliamentary Papers and that they pretty much exclude non-academics from accessing the things. I know someone has to pay for the digitisation, and that the same argument applies to other public records such as those hosted by Ancestry, but there has to be a better, fairer way. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on Old Bailey, because it delivers up primary sources, and primary sources are still most valuable overall. For example, take look at Jack Sheppard. It's a very good article. However, what's missing is any citation of the eye witnesses or Sheppard's statements to the bench at trial.
Now, for genealogists, all I can say is an untranscribable guttural noise. I'd trust Old Bailey less for that than anything, because the court reporters will have various spellings. Ancestry.com is unforgivable. At this point, every amateur genealogist in the world is unwittingly giving all her or his records to the LDS, since it's behind Ancestry.com. Personally, I don't want to be re-baptised posthumously, so I'm not keen on Ancestry.com grabbing everything in sight.
Anyway, I think it's a good addition to an encyclopedia article to have original testimony where possible, so long as the article does its job by being clear, accurate, and verifiable in its explanation first. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, oDNB might be not very, very helpful, since it was still laboring under the same impressions and impressionistic history as the material now brought in from the 1920's and 1980's, which probably gathered its material from the oDNB. On the other hand, my library has a copy of the nDNB. My problem is that they've rolled up the sidewalks during summer term. (We actually have no librarian at present. This is a point I've been hollering about at the administration. We will never keep accreditation without a librarian.)
Years ago, our library bought excellent reference works. It got a full OED. It got the full NDNB. It got the full Grove. It got all kinds of cool stuff. Then the money stopped. Then the students stopped being able to find anything that wasn't at Ask.com. Then the students stopped being able even to find that. (Most of them haven't even heard of Wikipedia.) Therefore, I am the only one haunting the reference section now that our historians have left.
Sorry, it's impossible for me to take a look right now. Admin talkpage stalkers, ahoy? Or report to WP:AIV, assuming it's really vandalism. They tend to be pretty fast. Bishonen | talk23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
No worries. I did. The user continues to delete all content of the page. grr. Thanks for the tips. Hope all is well. --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Try using the subtitles on that clip. That is what the likes of me are up against when people use videos as sources ... and that's before even having to worry about the interviews or whatever being in Hindi/Bhojpuri/Australian. There's a serious point here, which I raised not too long ago with RexxS. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
We have guidelines for videos hosted on Wikipedia/Commons at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Animations, videos and audio (although we still need closed captioning to be implemented), but Si is quite right about external videos being used as sources. The template {{cite video}} has a |quote= parameter, and we need people to make use of that to provide a text transcription (or translation) of the relevant part of the video. That's going to be a big job.
As for the Australian interviews, I'd recommend searching for someone who has a Babel box on their userpage that shows "This user is a native speaker of English." and "This user has a near-native understanding of Australian English.", then persuade them to translate for you. --RexxS (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When the Duke of Edinburgh visited India some years ago, the things got so mangled that he was reported (text version) as having visited a temple "dedicated to the Old Etonian god, Vishnu." Some would say it is bad enough that Etonians run the UK without them putting in a claim to have educated a deity also. Anti-colonialists could have been spitting feathers. How Hindu becomes Old Etonian is anyone's guess but, alas, that sort of thing goes on a lot. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Coincidentally, Jonathan, I recently wrote an alternative definition of Wikipedia to an optimistic user here: "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia where you never get rid of anybody for good". Too true, when it's people you want to get rid of. Though friends of mine... my bestest friends… they just leave. :-( Bishonen | talk11:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC).
Just remember, all, that we spend our time intensely involved in the sausage making part of this venture. There's still some really tasty sausages out there, and most people never concern themselves with how it is made. One's despondency with the process is only related to one's involvement in what goes on out of view of the public. There's still really good articles being written every day here. --Jayron3214:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Instead of going through the user guides, I figured I'd watch Bish's talk page. It's shorter and more honest.
1. Are "personal attacks" still a thing? Goodness gracious! Pearls clutched, knickers twisted, and fainting couches braced for impact!
2. Is the "sausage" still made by people who don't actually know what sausage tastes like, or what animal it comes from?
3. Is self-nomination still both the de jure and de facto method of promotion, on the odd idea that it is analogous to volunteering?
4. Is "support" still mistaken for "validation?" It occurs to me that I once noticed a very strong distinction between those two concepts. I could support an alcoholic relative, but I would not make that relative custodian of my children, and I could support a recovering addict, but I would not validate the reliability of that individual.
Nevertheless, I just wanted to fill some vacant hours. I'm still puzzling over some pages and whether to be very bold and rip them up to make them more encyclopedic. No two ways, though: I'll have to learn the stupid citation codes. I believe I may have tipped off my attitude toward them here and there. Oh, well: "sin is behoovely," as the Lady said. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, thank you, Tom. I was going to say something about the "tells", but I guess it's better not. Blocked for three months. Bishonen | talk20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC).
Right. So you think 115ash is the blocked AHLM13? Quite possible, I suppose. The interests are only partly similar, though: 115ash cares mostly about the glory of Italy. And the IPs belong to a fairly big range. I'm not convinced. How do you mean, his English is similar? Bishonen | talk20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
I am not suggesting anything, I am mentioning about this Ip range which supports his edit, as you mentioned the same thing in his talk page.C E (talk)01:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! Cosmic, you haven't been changed yet. Don't try to attack again! AHLM'd be a Pakistani. I'm not so shocked about the Ips (this signifies that even AHLM resides in the UK). That is the same range provided by TalkTalk Group. Bish, you're free to have a look at the sock investigation mage against me.--115ash→(☏)14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(Mage? Made? Page?) How do you mean, 115ash? The AHLM13 SPI? I've seen it thanks. Incidentally, don't accuse people of editing logged out unless you have good evidence (like I had when I said it to you, you know?). You don't provide any evidence at all here, just a random accusation. Don't do that. It's a personal attack. Bishonen | talk16:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
Have you been removing impotent content again, Sitush? Any relation of G K Singh, the other fashion designer, do you think? By the way, did you happen to notice the box I put at the top of the talkpage? I was amusing myself, really — disrupting Wikipedia to make a point — but it's still there, I'm glad to see, because it's true every word of it. Man, I'm glad I'm not an arb and have to be so proper all the time. Anyway, I've shortened Paresh Lamba a little. There are far too many puffy references, but I can't face making a selection of them. Bishonen | talk21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) My completely unsolicited opinion is that it's a perfect example of why each of you ought to make every effort to avoid the other. Why not make it a competition? The one who manages to ignore the other longest is the winner! --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion 2
Hi, could you please take a look at the Måns Zelmerlöw article. Another editor is kind of POV pushing that the singers comments about homosexuality should have its own "Controversies" section. While I had incorporated it into the article as a compromise. I dont know if a "controversies" section is the best way to handle it, but I can see a never ending meta-debate coming up so I will try to stay out of it.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Bubba, I've looked, and formed an opinion, but I'll keep it to myself, because I want to be able to take admin action in case the conflict leads to trouble on the article. That conflict has played out wholly by edit summary so far; nobody has edited the talkpage since 2012. Please take it there. A little talkpage discussion isn't a meta-debate, is it? Bishonen | talk22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
Decentscholar and Rajput334
What do you think of a possible connection between the recently blocked Decentscholar (talk·contribs) and the revitalised Rajput334, especially bearing in mind that the latter has socked previously? They've both got the same fixation with the Muslim-Hindu intermarriage thing at Rajput. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Likely enough. But I don't think it makes much difference. I've just alerted Rajput334 to the discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. Yes, to be expected; the user is an SPA, with no interest in Wikipedia other than pushing their agenda, so once topic banned they didn't really have anything to lose. Bishonen | talk08:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
Always good to hear from you, Boris, but I think your understanding is exaggerated. In a case like that — a neutral or even flattering mention in passing — a ping is surely more than enough. (I had actually followed the ping and read your statement even before I saw your question here. :-)) A formal notification is probably good practice if you're having a fling at someone. (OMG, Wiktionary says "have a fling at" (sense 6) is obsolete! I live too much in the 18th century! But it's such a good phrase!) Bishonen | talk07:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
Wiktionary says a lot of things, some of which may even have a relationship of some kind with reality. (Do feel free to try to find "targetted" in any genuine dictionary.) The modern BrEng would probably be "have a pop at". – iridescent11:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
A "pop"..? Good job I make no pretence of being modern, or British. (Hey! What's that stupid spellcheck doing querying the spelling "pretence"? Go away! Fool!) If "have a fling at" was good enough for Swift and Jane Austen, it's good enough for me. And "targetted"? Even I know it's target, targot, targotten. [/me trots off to look for juicy phrases in Chaucer to use next.] Bishonen | talk11:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
Thu dost not wish to alder go. It's "tar-zhay" -- as in the upscale shopping establishment for impecunious arts graduates in America. ("(Satire is) the art of flinging a well-tim'd turd" -- Jonathan Swift.) Thy spell chequers are a game for naturals and men of busyness. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict): Who are you? But (grudgingly) welcome, new user, I suppose. The first thing you need to learn about the site is not to leave cookies where Darwinbish can reach them. Bishonen | talk12:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
Can Bishzilla tap into their soccer momness and have a word with MacRusgail? Basically, they're upset that Jbhunley nominated one of their articles for deletion and identified issues with others. However they're using inflammatory language (stalker, molester) after being repeatedly asked to stop. Discussions: [248], [249], [250] They're obviously not listening to me. --NeilNtalk to me13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's not cool. Bishzilla doesn't have any admin tools right now (very sad that!), so I thought little 'shonen, who can actually block people, had better warn the user. I hope it helps. I don't usually go straight to mentioning blocks, but after the way they've been ignoring your reasoned posts, it seemed the way to go. Bishonen | talk15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
(edit conflict)If he is still making comments like that it might be time for a bit of an enforced time out. I feel like he is using these accusations as a way to avoid review of his articles. When I offered to work with him to improve some stubs his reply was:
This is harassment, and you have serious psychological issues of your own. Stop trawling through my edit history for something to latch on to. I don't spend all day going though yours."The spirit of cooperation" - You evidently know nothing about this judging by your behaviour. Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man, and stop trying to hide behind the rulebook. I don't give a damn about you. Is that plain enough for you?[251]
Which seems way over the top to me. The whole thread is on my talk page. This is not the behavior I would expect from someone wow has been here ten years. JbhTalk15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've already told them so, jb — I linked to that post specifically, here. The interesting thing will be to see what they do or say next. Bishonen | talk20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. I have a pretty thick skin and it is truly impossible for a person who does not know me to insult me but I doubt anyone cares to be disparaged on multiple pages - I no more than others. I have tried to move beyond the conflict with this editor - although I might not have reined in all of my snark - I do try but I am far from perfect. My strategy has been to simply go about my editing with extra care to ask for input on the articles relating to him but otherwise not be deterred by his behavior. I feel doing otherwise would reward bad behavior and I admit to a character flaw that makes doing that very difficult. At this point I figure he will either calm down or go completely off of the rails. JbhTalk23:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on in this case but it's really remarkable on my travels through Old Wikipedia, how often I come across editors who edited for 3, 5, 8 years without any problems and then something snapped, they started being uncivil or started to create sock accounts. It's like a switch flipped and they went from productive to self-destructive. Maybe they wanted to stop editing and rather than retiring, they needed to be kicked off? I thought this was an isolated case when I first saw it but at this point I've probably come across between 10-20 user accounts where this happened, both admins and regular editors. If any oldtimers know why this happens, I'd love to hear your ideas. Sorry to go off-tangent. LizRead!Talk!17:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No idea. [Defensively:] I and Bishzilla simply get more and more polite all the time. You realise she used to incinerate users with her atomic breath. "Suicide by admin" isn't unheard of, of course — spoiling for an indefinite block because it's too hard to simply leave. But I haven't seen more of those than I can count on the fingers of one hand. Bishonen | talk20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
In a way... and I've asked the user if he'd like his pages semi'd for a few days. Though I've often found threats like that quite empty. You know, a bit like the mantra "I'll report you to the Wiki Authorities". :-D Bishonen | talk21:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC).
I think it would be best to semi protect for a few days. I think this IP is the same person I encouraged a block for. Ironically, he/she is doing the very thing that got him/herself blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it when I read an incensed editor say he's going to take the issue to the Wikipedia supervisors or "higher level" editors. LizRead!Talk!22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Confession: flagrant and intolerable start of a wheel war. (Or not... I will leave you to judge.)
Hi, Bishonen. I have taken the unusual step of lifting a block you placed without consulting you. There was an unblock request at User talk:65.130.207.238, relating to a range block you placed on the range 65.130.192.0/19 (See block log.) I looked at all the edits from that range from 21 February onwards, and a sample from earlier. It is clear that the block relates to the IP address 65.130.207.32, which edited your talk page 3 times on the 4th of March 2015 above, in the section "Two IPs harassing my talk page". I do fully understand why you placed the block, and at the time it was a reasonable step to take. However, there have been many edits which clearly have nothing to do with the disruptive editor who led to the block, most of those edits being perfectly constructive, so keeping the range blocked on the basis of three edits from one IP address within a period of 15 minutes well over 2 months ago does not seem justified. Almost always, I consult the blocking administrator before unblocking in cases like this, but this time it seemed so clear-cut and obvious that I decided not to keep the editor who requested the unblock waiting. Please let me know in no uncertain terms if you think I was wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's OK, James, though I'm quite sure I didn't place a range block based on disruption by a single IP. It's not my practice. However, I can't face digging out the others, and it doesn't really matter, as I'm fine with your unblock. Bishonen | talk16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
Well, there were certainly plenty of other disruptive edits by the same person, but I didn't see any more in that IP range. Having said that, though, checking ranges for edits is far more difficult than it used to be, since they got rid of the old toolserver range edit tool, which was very basic, but actually worked properly, and replaced it with the new labs version, which has far more fancy features, but doesn't understand CIDR ranges. For example, when you ask for edits from the range 65.130.192.0/19, it actually give the edits for 65.130.0.0/16, and you have to laboriously search through the list to find the right edits, so it's possible that in doing so I missed some relevant edits. ...moan, complain, grumble... Aah, things just aren't as good now as they were in the old days. Why, I can remember when you could buy a pint of beer for less than two shillings, and watch proper black and white television, and if Wikipedia had existed in those days the range check tool would have come complete with the names and addresses of the editors who had used the IP addresses, and a description of what they were wearing ...moan, complain, grumble...The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
"Oh, I have ta'en too little care of this!" An editor has tried to use labs once too often and lost his composure. A rather cheerful developer is kicking his legs.
No need to be self-deprecating about being an old grouch, James. Embrace it, like Hithladaeus and me! I always do try to check for other edits before I block a range, but admittedly I sometimes give up after a few tries. It's not just the range edit tool, either; often I can't access, let alone use, any labs tools, not even the ones that work (when they work) exactly the same as before they moved. Grrrr. Do you suppose labs might be some sort of psychological experiment, to see how much crap editors will put up with before they start screaming and putting twigs in their hair? Bishonen | talk13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
Oi! Don't be baldist: some people haven't got hair to put twigs in. I'm going to do a write-up for Slate, moan on Jimbo's talk page, set up a protest Twitter account, and write a blog detailing Wikipedia's systemic bias with emphasis on the hirsuteness gap. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Who said that Bishonen was referring to twigs in his locks or coif? Only those with alopecia are unbetwigged after a bacchanal or the ravages of a maenad. As for me, I look at the picture and think of my time in Cockaygne. (Erg. I did not misspell that! I know how we spelled it a few years ago when we spoke early Middle English!) Hithladaeus (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick
Hi Bishonen. I noticed you recently s-protected TheGracefulSlick's talk page. I'm just letting you know that I have every intention of resuming harassment once it expires. Thanks, 82.132.239.83 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen. I would like to let you know that I have every intention of becoming extremely wealthy. I also intend to be phenomenally popular with women of great beauty, poor judgment, and incorrigible libido. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hithladaeus - You are obviously young and naive, young man, such optimism is refreshing to see. Take it from somebody at the other end of life's spectrum though, sieze any opportunity, or when you get here, you'll be cynical, jaundiced and grumpy. Oh, and horribly forgetful, achey everywhere, wrinkley and sad. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Alas, Chronos long ago slapped down my aspirations and capacities, but I rather thought that the IP's gleeful announcement of intent as achievement reminded me so much of the blindness of youf (it's like youth, but more complacently ignorant) that I felt like a demonstrative illustration. A bette noir of mine would say to students, "The last paper you wrote, what grade were you trying to achieve?" The bold young scholar would be caught unawares, not sure whether to confess "C, so I can get out of your class" or say "A, because I strive toward excellence," will usually say, "B or A." "And what grade did you actually make?" "Umm. . ." "Exactly," the grisly relic would then say, "what you intend to write and what you actually write may be quite different. Do you think that disappears for other people?" Granted, "vandalism" is a much lower objective, but who knows what Duchamp intended when he put a moustache on his copy of Mona Lisa?Hithladaeus (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (with black hair and gray)
Writer Freak
Hello, I unfortunately have to report that after doing some good attempts at useful edits, user:WriterFreak has gone back to disruptive behaviour. He has given Anythingyouwant a warning, he has left a misleading barnstar on my talk page and he has once again tried to get someone to discipline James. All this put together means that I have reached my limit with him. Sorry about the waste of time. I hoped he would turn around, but I know agree he lacks the maturity to edit competently and reliably. Thank you for letting me try. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Bordering on confirmed; in fact having just re-reviewed the CU evidence I'd be pretty happy saying Confirmed; I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place. The technical data is different to those Amanda Small socks that aren't already stale, but Amanda Small's IP addresses leaped all over the place, whereas those used by Writer freak and Jamesarmistead25 are fairly static and all geolocate to the same area. That could easily be explained by Writer freak editing from school whilst Amanda Smalls edited from home, of course, or by some other change of ISP. The behaviour is very similar to Amanda Smalls. Yunshui雲水20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all, and thank you very much for making an effort with the user, Happy Squirrel. I'm only passing by, in a bit of a hurry, but I've blocked Writer freak and written him a note. Bishonen | talk22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
Thanks very much for the tip, Langcliffe. I rather thought they might pop back up. Already took care of James, Neil, and this time I won't be such a softie. Thanks for completing the SPI. Bishonen | talk18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
Hopeful end to AN/I issue
Hi, normally I want an AN/I to run its course, but in "Wikihounding from WordSeventeen", WordSeventeen has been muddying a user's name (and anyone that agrees with them) by bringing up unrelated sock puppetry cases. Yes, the user has a checkered past, but there is no need to bring about their mistakes. I was wondering if you could close it with a block or whatever you feel is right. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It is rather pointy behavior considering the issue of him displaying quotes in violation of WP:POLEMIC was discussed quite a bit at his ArbCom case. The one he was displaying was removed and he just replaced it with another. This is not the behavior of someone who cares at all about feedback from the community. JbhTalk10:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I give a shit, MONGO, and I've replied to Collect on his page since he addressed me, but I'm not interested in tangling with him unless it seems necessary. This time it doesn't. If the people he's quoting complain, I may reconsider, it all depends. As for his question to Buster here, I'm really sorry to see such nastiness. In response to an olive branch from Buster, yet. Bishonen | talk11:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
Thats fine my dear...you do whatever you wish. But for someone who WAS amongst the worst baiters of Collect and who has made heinous personal attacks against him and myself to be coming here to seek further vindictive absolution gives me a certain degree of nauseation. I'm finding your sometimes lack of impartiality disturbing to be very frank. Perhaps best you not act in an administrative capacity if you cannot do it in a balanced manner.--MONGO12:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I haven't done any of the things MONGO claims, and once again, I would ask that MONGO stop following me around, stop engaging in incivility and personal attacks (in the form of rude comments and baseless accusations) or prepare to go back to ANI yet again. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, You know damn good and well the bullshit you've leveled at myself and Collect and I'll be glad to shove that same bullshit back to you in spades in any forum you so desire buddy. Nothing would please me more than to see you blocked for at least another three months as you have been in the past.--MONGO13:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
User 99.90.196.227
Hi, I saw that you had issued a warning to this user earlier, and just wanted to notify you that by chance I saw he or she has done an anti-Semitic remark here and engaged in a pseudo-editing war here. I'm not sure if this warrants some kind of action, usually I just edit and don't engage so much in such questions but I thought it was really shocking to see the anti-Semitic thing. Just wanted to let you know. Yakikaki (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I contacted you as a random administrator. Please revert the 2 disruptive edits made by User:Roby Iliescu at FC Universitatea Craiova. He removed sourced text and replaced it with dubious unsourced text. The page was semi-protected because of the same edits made by him unlogged (IP 79.113.102.71), but now he logged in and "evaded" the semi-protection. Also, please take into consideration a full protection of the article. 79.117.155.123 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
For all you've done here. You do a lot of very good work, but the biggest thing, for me, is having you around. You're smart and funny and very very witty, and understanding and compassionate, and I'll miss bumping into you here and there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Help with person repeatedly using a self-published genealogy site...
Diff - I've reverted twice - but .... I've got to run and do some stuff and don't really have it in me to argue with someone who really thinks a self-pubished family genealogy site trumps the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ealdgyth - Talk16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
some midsummer fun 2015 below:
Summertime, and the living is easy…
Please speak softly. This user is busy smelling the flowers and may not respond to queries in a timely, or rational, manner. You may be better off consulting another admin. Or the friendly talkpage stalkers may be able to help you, see the cool jaguar image below.
There's a big chance that the strawberries are repackaged imported strawberries, though, and not äkta svenska jordgubbar. Thomas.W talk20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to share a quote that I ran across while re-reading the Blessed Hooker. It's when he springs his trap in the "Preface." He proposes a grand council for settling the arguments with the Puritans, but he figures that they wouldn't abide by it, because it would have Authority, and there are no authorities except themselves, so he asks, “I would therefore know, whether for the ending of these irksome strifes. . . ye be content to refer your cause to any other higher judgment than your own, or else intend to persist and proceed as ye have begun, till yourselves can be persuaded to condemn yourselves.”
It's one of those things I've wanted to say on a dozen occasions since, in meetings, online, with fellow left wingers, etc. (And my other favorite is Samuel Butler's: "He who is persuaded against his will/ Is of his own opinion still.") Hithladaeus (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Per Holknekt
Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I recently created. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in the next few days so any help or improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Very nice, Babba. I see some things I can wikilink. But it looks from the history like another user is copyediting it right now, so I'd better wait till they're done. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC). PS, kom nu till Hångers källa! I denna ljuva sommartid osv. Don't forget to smell the flowers. Bishonen | talk20:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC).
Hi, Hawkeye7. Segrè's autobiography A Mind Always in Motion (used as a reference in Emilio G. Segrè) is conveniently available online and does indeed make it clear Segrè was Fermi's student. But the only book by Segrè that's given as a reference in Enrico Fermi is Enrico Fermi, Physicist (1970). You probably meant to refer to A Mind Always in Motion in your edit summary "Segre was his student. See Segre pp. 48-52" — didn't you? The pages fit. Perhaps you want to add A Mind Always in Motion as a reference to Enrico Fermi, and then refer to it as "Segrè 1993" or whatever the reference system is in the article? And take it up on article talk. I can't say I see Ash doing that much insisting — he reverted you, then posted one comment about it on your page. If you explain it to him on article talk and point him to A Mind Always in Motion, I assume he'll stop insisting. Your note on Ash's talkpage is frankly not entirely explanatory. Bishonen | talk23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC).
The religion card is a big problem with the infoboxes on a lot of scientist articles. I would remove them, but given that you can't see them, it didn't seem worth arguing about. But feel free. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. In regards to the post you left me on my page to which I was kind to have replied back to, I have yet, several days later not received a single word from you. Where I come from it is considered polite, good manners, responsible, mature, decent and respectful to reply back. I have no idea where you come from but where I'm from we call it rude to not reply back. Cadencool01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You complain about perceived rudeness by leaving an overtly rude post. You are very funny, and please don't mistake this for a compliment. JehochmanTalk01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You can perceive it any way you wish but my post was not rude, it's called honesty and common sense. How else could you possibly see it otherwise? Cadencool01:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. OK, I posted on your page and you replied to me. How many times would you like us to reply back and forth before we can stop? Bishonen | talk02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC).
... and asking to be cheered up on top of that, - not easy, - should smell the flowers perhaps. - Btw, I am out of prison and have interesting conversations about teenagers and beginners, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda. I find it ironic to see you posting here considering how you proudly joined in on a thread devoted to trashing and badmouthing me as seen here: [253]. It's also ironic how Bish considered such a post devoted to bad mouthing me as just fine. How hypocritical of her, considering how she left me this post [254] where she lectured me, threatened me, and pretty much bullied me. Why Bish did you order me to not “craptalk” him but yet it was ok if he did it towards me as seen in the dif? Btw where was your evidence for this supposed “craptalk” I did? I want direct proof for that through quotes showing me doing what you accused me of. Furthermore you said :“ Please leave Cassianto alone from now on. Don't talk about him on wiki. Don't bond with the guys by badmouthing other people. I hope that's clear.” No it's not clear. Tell me why did you order me to refrain from supposedly doing all of these things yet you turned around and allowed him and others to do to me? How hypocritical is that for you to do? Your conduct as an admin was biased, hypocritical, unfair and disgraceful in regards to how you mistreated me. Your tools should be taken away from you. It's appalling to see how unfit you are to be an admin. Had you actually done your job correctly by doing your homework you'd have seen the long history that dates back to 2014. But no that would be called work so you decided to cut corners through laziness and judge me without even knowing what you were doing. I suppose it no longer matters since both the user and I made peace. One last thing, what's up with the bragging list on your user page? Looks to me as inappropriate for an admin since it can be seen as a trophy list. Cadencool22:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Caden:, your recent comments here, on your talk page, and on my talk page indicate you are having some kind of personal crisis. it would best if you take a break and find something else to do, for your own well being. I recently admonished you for using the thanks button five times in a short period to one user. In response, you made a series of bizarre, paranoid accusations against me, making me think you aren't being rational at this time. Please take care of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Caden, it's unexpected to see you on my page again less than a day after you banned me "from posting ever again" on yours. How do you figure that's going to turn out, you making yourself at home on my page when you don't want to see me on yours? But I'm sorry you're so upset, and I'm sorry I responded to you like I did above. Sometimes it's like I can't resist trying to be funny. :-( I would rather not have posted even the one time on your page, because it was a bad time to be reproaching you when you were already being piled on. But I had (or thought I had) little choice, after I warned you and Baseball Bugs on ANI and Bugs acknowledged that he had seen what I said. I made it clear in the ANI warning that if I couldn't be sure you'd seen it, I'd have to put something on your page. After the ANI thread was closed, I wish you would have posted a line on mine. ("If you will kindly respond here or alternatively on my page… you'll save me the trouble of putting a formal caution on your pages."[255]) Anyway, I hope you cheer up, Caden. As Viriditas says, take care of yourself. It's only a website. I'm closing this thread now, folks. Bishonen | talk13:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks very much, Norman21. Through that link, I also found this one, which gives details and background. I've put both of them into the article with some neutral text and made a separate section (because that stuff is important, and needs to show up in the table of contents). Please take a look and see what you think — feel free to edit the article. Bishonen | talk10:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC).
Sorry
I've done the same thing on other websites where I reply to the person that you shouldn't ever reply to, but I'll try to avoid replying to that IP again. Dustin(talk)16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Good thinking, Dustin. I've given them a nice personalized warning, and I will certainly block if they persist. I see they've had a discretionary sanctions alert too, so they could be topic banned, but that's kind of useless for an IP SPA. Bishonen | talk16:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC).
Thanks, Aladdin. Starting an emergency thread on ANI was a kind of workaround around the fact that probably few admins were following the original thread any longer. It shouldn't be used often, of course — it could potentially be quite annoying — but BLPs and consideration for their subjects is very important. Glad it worked. Bishonen | talk13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC).
[Enthusiastically:] 'Twas brillig and the slithy flowers did gyre and gimble in the meadow! Come taste them! Graze, graze! Bishonen | talk18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC).
Hi, thank you for your message, pleased that you like this picture (you are the second user to tell me so). The place has changed by now, the horse and the flowers have been replaced by a pine-tree grove... Cheers, --Jibi44 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bish can you have a look at an issue I'm having with KoshVorlon? On ANI you said that User:Lucd13's user page was fine and I agree with you and so did Liz but when she tried to undo User:KoshVorlon's edits she was reverted by him (KoshVorlon) as seen here:[256]
and when I tried asking him (KoshVorlon) to revert his edit I was called a troll as seen here:
[257]. Can you revert the user's page back? If I do it, KoshVorlon will start back up with his personal attacks on calling me a troll etc. Cadencool22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What to do about this? User:Searchwriter/sandbox? Seems like it should be speedy-able as a draft of a now-deleted article by a now-indeffed user but I couldn't see where it fits in the speedy criteria. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's a sandbox. It contains material that the user might want to use for other purposes, on other websites or whatever. (Yes, you'd think he'd have it saved on his own hard drive already, but maybe not, you never know.) The user is indeffed, but that wouldn't prevent him from looking at the sandbox, maybe as an IP, and harvesting text from it. I don't want to stop that happening — we have no vendetta against him — and I'm altogether not into deleting sandboxes much, unless their owners ask me to. But I've removed the image, since it's up for deletion on Commons,[259] and Seattleditor is clearly unable to disentangle himself with any credibility from his contradictory claims in the deletion discussion there. Bishonen | talk11:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
In this article under the subsection "Europe" fourth paragraph, I have a citation needed template added after the one comment regarding glaciers in Sweden. I have searched everywhere but cannot find anything to support that sentence. In fact, I have found little to nothing regarding glaciers in Sweden. I know good sources are available since Sweden has actually been doing glacier research for 100+ years. Anyway, if interested, can you assist me with a source even if I have to completely alter the sentence? If not, I fully understand.--MONGO08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You probably know this one. It says "In the Kebnekaise Mountains of Northern Sweden of sixteen glaciers examined from 1990-2001, 14 are retreating, one is advancing and one is stable", same as you do. I don't know if you took it from them, or they from us (nah!), but anyway, they have a reference for the sentence:[260] An unhelpful reference, I must say. It's to a reliable source, a uni department, but simply to the front page of it, and I can't find anything about the specific study. I did find a reference for the sentence about Storglaciären, [261], but I realize you need more. I'll keep looking, but probably your chances are better than mine: you're a better researcher, and all that stuff is in English anyway. Bishonen | talk09:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
That first link is to Mauri Peltos website and he was one of the three primary editors of the Wikipedia article...so there is some back and forth on that data. I know this much...anybody using MONGO as a reference on their term paper should be 1). Publicly shamed 2). Receive a fail for the entire course 3). Thrown out of the university! So Pelto must have added that info some years back from research he uncovered...and it came from a reliable source (not Wikipedia).--MONGO17:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
(TPS bursts in): I presume you have this one? Valter Schytt's fine article, if a little old -- but it's got a pretty good batch of references that you could chase down. Antandrus (talk)15:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
That most definitely looks like it. The text was not added to the article by me but is definitely derived from that data. Nice work. I searched forever and it just seemed to elude me. Thanks bunches to all of you! MONGO pleased.--MONGO17:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I know we may have our little differences, but after your post on my talk page Caden has continued to post on my page after I've told him to stop. He is not minding his own business in a place he doesn't belong (making amends with Lucd13). Now, he has accused me of being a liar and told me to grow up. At this point, I feel harrassed and wikihounded (he has been following my moves lately; just look at his contributions on my talk page) even though this is just the second warning. I'd like him to stop. What should I do? Diff: [262]. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑09:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Callmemirela, the only behaviour you can change is your own, and the only time to complain to admin is after you've tried your best to improve your own practice. For instance, you need to stop fiddling with your post on Lucd13's page (provoking a "new messages" banner every time), especially to add remarks about Caden. (I'm pinging Caden here since he has an objection to me posting on his page.) I seriously don't blame him for posting one more time on your page. I've no reason to believe he'll post there again as long as you leave him alone. (Don't, Caden, or you'll be in trouble.) Complaining about him on other pages counts as not leaving him alone. Also, did you notice where Lucd13 said he'd like the conversation to be at an end when you've told him what incivility you're referring to? And it's a sad fact that few people much appreciate "little reminders" about this and that that you would like them to change about themselves — perhaps especially coming from people who have offended them. And as for advising Lucd13 to "keep calm"… I actually once wrote a little essay about how it's better not to tell people to "keep calm": it's here if you're interested. I'm sure you mean well with your advice to Lucd13, but I hope you're done on his page now, and also done talking about Caden. Bishonen | talk10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
By the way, do you know about pinging, Mirela? It means linking a user's name so that they get an alert that you've mentioned them. (It's much more meaningful than providing admins and experienced users with links to well-known wikipedia policies, as you do above — some touchy people even get annoyed about that, as it can be perceived as condescending, though I'm sure you didn't mean it like that in this instance. Just a little tip.) You're supposed to ping when you discuss another user. It's because you didn't ping Caden on Luc's page that Caden says "behind my back" in his post to you. Please read the info page about pinging and incorporate it into your practice. Bishonen | talk10:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
Thank you Bish for letting me know about this thread. Oh and Bish just so you know, yes you are welcome on my talk page, just ignore my past comment because that was said while I was upset. As for about Mirela, right now I'm very pissed off at this edit [263] of hers and I'm not going to say anything further before I say something I will regret because I'm too damn pissed off right now. Cadencool20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
This is my last message regarding this whole issue and Caden and I's disagreements that seem to explode more everyday (or more less now). I have slowly excluded myself from all pages that Caden watches that are also on my watchlist, because right now I want to forget about him and move on. I am pissed off, too. Not just Caden. Him, too, has committed errors. [264] I'm sorry but "Time for you to apologize"? Yes, I stand by what I wrote on Lucd13's talk page even though it was removed. You never suggested an apology. It was downright "It's time for you to apologize". "I think you should apologize for your mistake. You were proven wrong." would had been a lot more better than that nasty tone and the eventual false accusations (view below). You do not own me. I had planned on the apology once this was sorted out and I had the chance to do so.
You had accused me of being a liar and have told me to grow up. I'm sorry, but how would you had known about my post on WP:Resources? I am certain you have been wikihounding me since this started. You also knew about my post to The Traveling Man's talk page then also posted on there ([265]). One would only know that if they had been following my contributions list. [266]
I was only suspicious about the initial source from the start. I eventually found more sources to confirm the said content. If you follow TV sources, you would know that 99% of the time, when there is news about a TV show of any kind, those sources will announce it as well. Excuse me for following how it's been with TV shows on Wikipedia and its used sources. I have not dismissed what Lucd13 said. I said I would search for sources, and I did. I also suggested to him in my edit summaries that since it's a TV show, there would be more sources. And there was (however, they came from social media which is discouraged to use), but I suppose it would be good to use them for back-up sources; I don't know.
I am done with this crap now. This is my last message, as mentioned above. While I am getting shit for this issue, there are issues from others about it as well. Lucd13 ranted about me with rather uncivil comments and insults and Caden was using a rude tone to his messages on my talk page (WP:Civility seems to be apart of this, but I can't confirm since it's not intense but it is very unhelpful and rude) and has seemingly wikihounded me. I am done. I want to move on. I am tired of arguing. I have apologized; Lucd13 has forgiven me. I want this issue to be over. I'm sorry for not pinging; I'm sorry for the behind-the-back talk. I'm sorry for the whole mess, but I also wish Caden be less "possessive", if you will. I have promised to be more careful in the future (I am working on a solution for edit warring stuff). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Mirela, by "wikihounding" you seem to mean "looking at my contributions list", since you blame Caden for even knowing about a post of yours. That's not what the word means, and the contributions link is there for a reason; it's meant to be used. But you should both give each other a wide berth from now on. I know it can be difficult to let go and move on, I've experienced it myself; I'm glad you've resolved to try. I hope you feel better soon. Bishonen | talk21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
E-mail
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Bishonen, about your note on my page, I explained in detail on Luc13's page why his posting is Polemic, I've demonstrated that it meets the definition of Polemic as defined on that same page . I have to admit, I'm a bit suprised to see you post that it doesn't apply to talk pages. Yes, I realize that we have flexability as to what we can do and say on our talkpages, and believe it or not , I agree with that, however, posting Polemic statements doesn't fall under "just being flexible" , it's not accepted. Take a look at WP:POLEMIC and you'll see that there's no exemptions given anywhere for polemic statements, 3RR for example, is given an exemption when it's for BLP purposes, polemic has no such exemption, nor does it have any exemption. So, I'm carrying out policy by removing the polemic message from Lucd13's page. Regarding my edit summary to Caden, that was me being sarcastic. I've got a dry sense of humor, and it definetly doesn't come out well online at all, but, it was sarcasm, not incivility, but if you like, I'll revert my removal of Caden's message so that's back on my page. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti10:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon, you are not "carrying out policy" even if you're following WP:POLEMIC to the letter, since, as has been explained to you repeatedly, you claiming that something is "a policy" is not going to make it one and you are never going to get consensus to make WP:POLEMIC a policy (you're welcome to try, just to see how quickly you get shot down; I would also point out that if "content unrelated to wikipedia should be removed" were a policy, your own user page would be first in the sights). As Bishonen has been too polite to point out, you're not just skirting on the edges of a block for disruption, but given your history you're within a hair's breadth of a WP:CIR indefblock. Let it drop. – iridescent11:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Iridescent. What he said, KoshVorlon. Also I don't know what you mean that I posted WP:POLEMIC "doesn't apply to talk pages". No talkpages have been involved AFAIK. It does apply to userpages, assuming that was what you meant, but it's not relevant to that userpage and the material on it. I honestly don't know why that's so hard to grasp and why you're eternally "surprised" about it. I'm damned if I'll explain yet again. And if you know your "dry sense of humor", which I would call something else, doesn't come across well online, why do you post it on Wikipedia? I can't say I care if you restore Caden's post or not, and I doubt he does either. The edit summary was the problem, not the removal. Bishonen | talk11:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
Oh, people have been complaining about that sig for literally years; a glance over the history of his talkpage will show that he thinks Wikipedia policies apply to everyone else, not him. At some point, presumably either someone will salt the page he transcludes it from, or one of the more colourful characters will notice that he's using a subst'ed signature and he'll realise the hard way just why we discourage them so strongly. Trust me, the sig is not the most glaring WP:CIR issues here. – iridescent11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Iridescent, please quote that sentance fully " Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities..." On Luc13's page he's posting content that attacks or vilifys a group of editors. It's therefore a polemic statement. Regarding my signature, people have complained for various reasons about my signature, most because they hate artistic signatures of any sort, however, your complaint's valid, my signature's too long, so I'll shorten it right now. KoshVorlonRassekali ternii i mlechnye puti12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
When the target is "the entire Wikipedia community" it's not singling out an editor or group thereof. Can I just add my voice to the "drop it" camp? WormTT(talk) 12:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Kosh, for the last time WP:POLEMIC is not a Wikipedia policy so your angels-on-pinheads arguments as to whether it's been breached (it hasn't) are irrelevant.
WTT, just to put things in perspective this is the user who performed this edit; I really wouldn't hold out too much hope of common sense sinking in. – iridescent12:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Common sense or no, KoshVorlon has agreed in the past that if "three users in good standing" tell him to drop something, he'll do it. I'm hoping he'll stick to that. WormTT(talk) 13:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That was my bad to use the wrong thing for the santion, but I will point out that Mark has had 3 blocks that have been under the community sanctions WP:GS/GG, which the latest would be the one to consider for this case : [267]. I would ask if I could undo the hatting to replace the reason with this one. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I write hurriedly. I don't see it. You link me to a month-long block by HJ Mitchell from January 2015, but I don't altogether see the relevance to AE. The block rationale mentions a topic ban. But where is this topic ban? Not in the GG final decision. I see a topic ban from March on this page, lifted on March 26. And there's another month-long block by H J Mitchell in March. And, oh, right, there was an indefinite topic ban in November 2014 by Gamaliel. But it was lifted in February 2015. Look… I don't see how your complaints and diffs in the request fit in with any of this. So, no, I don't agree to you lifting the hat and merely inserting a January block (?) as "reason". It doesn't make any sense. There were topic bans of limited duration, yes. You can't take him to AE today for violating those. So what is it you want to have "enforced" on the AE page? I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to start over if you want the user sanctioned (and probably not do it on AE). Your new reason doesn't fit your evidence (which has been framed wrt violating "decorum"). If MarkBernstein has violated a sanction — a sanction I can't find — you could start a new AE request.
If you don't like what I say, could you take it to ANI, please, or to AE talk, and try to get consensus for overruling me? I have to be out of here in five minutes.
I'll open a discussion at AE talk at your advice, there is the discretionary sanction of issue here too but I'll do that at talk. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jorm, I appreciate it. I wonder where everybody else was. It took nearly an hour before the IP was reverted — an IP reverting an admin action on a contentious board without so much as an edit summary. Was one of those unmissable American sports events in progress? Bishonen | talk08:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
I didn't actually look at the diffs (so no opinion on the merits), but it was obvious to me that this is a request for enforcement under WP:ARBGG#Discretionary sanctions. Closing it for linking the wrong section seems...overly bureaucratic. T. Canens (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Just in case, I have opened the AN requesting the reopen over here [268] and notifying you. You're clearly right to close it on a procedural basis, so I'm certainly not trying to seek any type of remedy/result against you, simply the fix up the AE instead of refiling it fresh with a better sanction. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Timotheus here - implying that someone is complicit in rape / rape threats is so far beyond the pale that closing due to an incorrect link seems bizarre. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world, and given the preponderance of students and academics on Wikipedia it's not unreasonable to assume things are going to be running slower than usual. Now, please don't put me in a position where I feel obliged to defend The Most Inept Arbcom Since 2008™ again. – iridescent08:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration? The living would be easier without AE, says the victim. (Is there a more palatable word for victim in the context? I was threatened to be blocked for this edit, DYK? And what would a block achieve? A GA coming later, whom does it help?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the middle of finals in most academic institutions in the English-speaking world. Blimey, it's 30 years or more ago but mine were over somewhere around the first week in June, maybe even the last week in May. Ok, that's just one university but if the dates for finals are slipping and that causes the dates for ArbCom deliberations to slip then, given long enough, we'll end up going full circle. Perhaps this is a question to ask at the next arbcom elections: "are you likely to be involved in degree examinations, as a student or academic, during the next year or two? If so, how will you ensure sufficient time for the responsibilities of this role also?" - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You were at Cambridge, which has always had shorter terms than everywhere else. (We always had something similar as one of the questions in my day; it isn't just relevant to academics, but to anyone in the military reserves, in a job that regularly takes them abroad etc. "People are more likely to be on holiday in the summer" is hardly a shock revelation.) – iridescent11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Two weeks shorter, I thought, but no worries. I'm being a bit facetious: the summer holiday scenario suggests we should aim for an ArbCom consisting 50:50 North and South hemisphere; indeed, the WMF should send a grant in the direction of a pressure group for that purpose right now. And doubtless the alpinists etc will object to the point-y funding. - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm more disturbed that finals would actually be an issue for someone with tools unless they actually worked at University or went back after a career. I'd be happier if it were Holiday as the reason. Greece is nice this time of year. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
A little more than two weeks for the Spring Term, if I recall correctly, Si - 56 days instead of the 60 days for the Michaelmas and Lent terms (although I always understood 60 days was the standard for university terms with the differences between HE establishments being a function of the number of workdays per week: 5, 6, or 7). As for Greece, it is incredibly hot at this time of year - no problem for a dinosaur like me, but hardly "nice". Nevertheless, your pound, dollar or krona is likely to go further there quite soon. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, RexxS. I never kept much track of it. Back then, it seemed like weeks just to travel by British Rail from home to Cambridge or vice versa. And still I refused their sandwiches: once bitten, twice poisoned shy ;)
As for working days, well, that might explain it. I didn't bother with lectures (couldn't hear them) but had many, let's say, memorable weekend evenings in supervisions with the likes of Maurice Cowling, Harold James, Edward Norman, Tim Blanning and numerous others. Some of those conversations veered well away from the matter at hand, including one when Cowling (rightly, as it turned out) recognised that I wouldn't be able to hold down a job in the "real world" and said that he would put a word in for me with his mates in the secret services - he thought that my intelligence, my lipreading skills and the possibilities of adapting my required hearing aids into surreptitious eavesdropping devices might be attractive. I told him that I had no desire to end up dead in Moscow. My mistake, as it turns out!
Alas (?), most who taught me are still living and thus BLP applies, as it does also for various students of my cohort. I do have the evidence, sometimes photographic. My time may come, mwah-ha-ha-ha :) - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward, even if you disregard people who work in academia (which is a fair few) and those who have children doing their exams (a few more), it wouldn't be that surprising if quite a number of Wikipedia admins are students. The tranche of editors who were spotty teenagers editing the pages of their favourite band during the boom of 2007–08 are now the grad students in their mid-20s. Assuming this photograph is reasonably representative* of the people so obsessed with Wikipedia that they'd pay money to spend three days in the most expensive city in the world, trapped in one of the country's most notoriously unpleasant buildings, listening to people they'd normally cross the street to avoid droning about their pet hobby-horses, then it looks like there's a decent smattering of 20-somethings. (While I don't know their ages, just going by photos on userpages two members of the current Arbcom look about twelve.) – iridescent09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
*If this photograph is representative of the hardcore, then the people who use "diversity" as a shitty stick to beat whoever they happen to be in disagreement with have some serious mote/beam issues, given that this photo was taken in the middle of the most diverse city in the world yet looks like a UKIP rally. – iridescent09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So, the 2008 ArbCom is notorious? Wow. Who would have thought it? Certainly, long time admins getting stripped by secret non-ArbCom procedures done by review process internally on the secret list-serve wouldn't have thought so. They'd have simply applauded the sagacity of self-selection and the ability to do special pleading when regular pleading might take too long. (By the way, American universities were done with Spring term in May, and I think they're still "English-speaking." Now, I have very little evidence that they're "English writing," but that's a different standard.) It's untrue, of course, to say that ArbCom is what was wrong with Wikipedia back then. If all of the problems besetting users were listed, I'm sure several would not have been due to ArbCom. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you...
...for moving the discussion to the talk page from where it was clearly out of position and in a fashion very likely to have influenced the discussion and decisions. Cheers, LindsayHello21:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Enforcement Request Regarding TheRedPenOfDoom at WP:AE
I have opened an enforcement request against TheRedPenOfDoom at WP:AE. You are being notified because an aspect of the complaint is that he or she misled you into helping them breach a topic ban, which they did not disclose clearly when seeking assistance from you at WP:EWN. The request is here. Vordrak (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the alert, but it has apparently already been closed. FYI, I was indeed not aware of the topic ban, but merely noticed an IP-hopper in obvious need of a block for trolling, disruption and edit warring. Pleased to find the range very small and not used by anyone else for editing Wikipedia, I blocked for 2 weeks. So I didn't just block for edit warring — that would have been shorter. Incidentally, if anything "misled", or led, me into rangeblocking, it wasn't TheRedPenOfDoom, but the comment by Hell in a Bucket and, especially, the helpful information from Thomas.W. Bishonen | talk08:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
SiTrew's block
Was that a "save face" block? I don't imagine anybody would've felt threatened or offended by his ramblings. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What, my face? You must think me extremely sensitive. It was more a "save the user" block. Of course I'm not going to discuss that aspect of it. No, I don't suppose anybody felt threatened, but did you see this, this, or this? Note the edit summaries. And did you see where he removed my warning[271] and then complained he couldn't find it? "Apparently admin User:Bishonen also crapped on my my talk page, but I can't see it. so how can I possibly reply? Admin abuse as usual"? He had in fact already replied. As I had said in my warning, he wasn't in a fit state to edit.[272] Quite confused (you realize this is not a new user, so that wasn't it) and extremely belligerent with it. But indeed I'm not sure two weeks, which I went to in view of his block log, was the right length; I won't object if the UTRS admins find it appropriate to unblock him or shorten the block. Nobody could be better pleased than me if he's able to write a coherent unblock request. Bishonen | talk19:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
No, I meant his face; and yes, that is the aspect I was referring to. I've seen this done quite a few times (RG's block springs to mind). You probably think you're doing the editor a favour, but I'm not so sure. Perhaps turning a blind eye would've been a bigger favour. Alakzi (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's true, Alakzi. I've never found 'Shonen unwilling to discuss with a pleb (and there's nobody more plebeian than I). Sometimes she's busy; sometimes she forgets - don't we all? - but I don't believe a lack of response will be due to unwillingness. You may well be right, of course, that turning a blind eye may have been better. Nevertheless, letting someone continue to edit while "under the weather" has the potential for the Hang-'em-&-flog-'em Brigade to impose draconian sanctions on them. And that's far harder to unpick after the event. The block does look lengthy, but I suspect the intention is have him unblocked as soon as he regains equilibrium. It's okay to disagree with my analysis, but I think I'm right; 'Shonen is one of the most reasonable admins I've ever come across. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Alakzi. I didn't mean to ignore you, I just didn't know what to say more; you made a good point. So did RexxS and Iridescent, though. These situations are tricky. Bishonen | talk21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
Closing this thread. I advise everybody in it to take further concerns to this ANI thread if they're important, but please be careful of overwhelming it. TLDR will only mean it doesn't, in fact, get read. Bishonen | talk08:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On June 29, in response to his multi-accounting, you generously said to User:CrazyAces489 that if he ceased editing on the CrazyAces489 account and pointed it to his new account, that you would grant him leniency on the multi-accounting offenses. He has not taken your words seriously and has made over 100 edits on the CrazyAces489 account since then. Those edits have included a 3RR [273][274][275] , as well as CrazyAces489 trying to settle [276][277] some old scores [278].
Given the terms you offered, the situation is concerning enough that I hope you will have a look at it.
In addition, User:Tokyogirl79 asked CrazyAces489 nicely to stop creating articles in the mainspace given his endless string of poor articles. His response was to create another [279] the next day. While Tokyogirl79 was not giving an order, only a request, I think it calls into question whether CrazyAces489 can ever be a productive contributor when his response to two admins going out of their way to set him on the right path is to immediately contravene the advice of both of them. --SubSeven (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I stopped editing on my "new account" after I was outed on that account. I tagged Bishonen on the talk page. [280] . On the Royce Gracie article talk page violation of 3rr included SubSeven. SubSeven also made claims that I don't like BJJ, but why would I create and fight for BJJ articles? Settling old scores is incorrect. If I was settling old scores with [281] , than NightShift36 is settling even worse with multiple deletions across various articles I was editing on [282] , [283] and more [284].
Steven Anderson was a well known martial arts fighter who was black belt magazine hall of fame. I am sorry if I believe that black martial artists deserve a place in the history of martial arts. Sorry that I created so many articles about them. It seems that they may not necessarily have a place here. :( CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Note - CA again "retired" to avoid impending punishment. If he does come back on this account or is found on any other, can some block finally be enforced? This user has tip-toed around policy and admins for too long and has been given too many chances. He has proven he can not be trusted to work here collaboratively, so no one should bother to continue to be lenient with him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Bishonen and hopefully the other ANI will just get sorted as nothing. Unfortunately, CA hinted at a third account he was prepared to use, but never mentioned a name. If he does what he did last time to evade scrutiny, expect another account somewhere that is actually CA.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again. Hopefully this is the last you'll have to hear about CA, at least in a negative manner such as this. Who knows, maybe he can come back, learn how to properly edit, and be one of the best wikipedians here (One can dream, right?).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, I didn't even know IBAN's existed until Tokyogirl brought them up. [285] I took a small break thought about it and had another account. I was outed and TheGracefulSlick started following me around that account. Simply take a look at this. [286] . I asked him to stay off of my talk page a while back. [287] and asked Tokyogirl to have TheGracefulSlick stay away from me. [288] He agreed and simply did not. [289] This isn't retaliation, I simply want nothing to do with this individual. I am not saying he should be banned from wikipedia. Just away from me. That is the purpose of an IBAN correct? As early as two months ago I didn't want him to contact me. So how could this be thought of as retliation? [290] and [291]CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Because right after I gave valid information supporting Niteshift36's argument at AN/I, you took me to ANI. That is easily considered retaliation. And I agreed to stay away from your work and talk page (which I did), but said nothing about ANI, because I knew you would be sent there for how you continue to break policy in article creation and your inability to collaborate with others. Like I said, if you actually took people's advice I would not be an issue with you, we could even work together (crazy theory, right?).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
From what I understand an IBAN - Interactive Ban states Interaction ban[edit]
"Shortcut:
WP:IBAN
The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way.[1] For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:
edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
reply to editor Y in discussions;
make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means);
use the Thanks extension on editor Y's edits."
Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) Stated that TheGracefulSlick TheGracefulSlick " edit in a manner that complies with IBAN." Which he did not! That is why I asked for an official IBAN now. Can I PLEASE and I am sincerely asking you that an IBAN be placed on TheGracefulSlick for me. I don't edit on anything he does. Yet a day hasn't gone by that he hasn't had some sort of issue with me. CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually another user had a problem with you...scratch that multiple users have a problem with you. I didn't start the issue, YOU did. Everyone else around you has been trying to help you, but YOU continue to disrupt collaborative engagements and create poorly-written articles. I thought you were retired? Could you please choose what you are doing, and perhaps improve positively upon it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Well if we want to examine his usual pattern, it is for when he comes back on the CA account after he believes he evaded scrutiny again. Right now, he is either on an actual break or is on another account just like last time. He did hint that he had a third account to start over with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I created a new account after an admin emailed me and said that I could if I retired. I minded my own business and was outed. I can even provide the link where I was outed on May 28, 2015 [292]. I guess being outed is considered to be ok. I had stayed away from martial arts articles when I had a new account (an area where I had an emotional attachment as per cleanstart ). [293] I created articles that were important to minorities including Congolese Genocide and African American History
which were automatically noteworthy based on accomplishments via WP:WPBB/N "Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association." I made a few other articles and that was it." Automatically notable and no chance of being deleted via AFD.
In terms of TheGracefulSlick, after he saw that I created James Takemori he messaged PRehse and asked to nominate it for deletion and later claimed he wanted nothing to do with my work on 29 May 2015. [294] Yet strangely enough he started showing up on places my new account went to and started heavily editing there. [295] I retired my new account and went back to this one, I also left a reason why. [296] I felt I was being hounded and and asked Tokyogirl79 to ask TheGracefulSlick to leave me alone in the spirit of IBAN. [297] To which he agreed on June 29, 2015 [[298] ] and simply ignored as of June 30, 2015 to July 4, 2015 . [299]
He has voted to the exact opposite of what I vote (although once changed his vote) including [300][301][302][303][304] . The purpose of TheGracefulSlicks hounding me I believe is based on my nominating a few of his articles for deletion 2 months ago. [305][306][307][308] TheGracefulSlick stated that he believes that I have a personal vendetta against him [309] Another even told us to stay away from each other. [310] I have been trying to get away from him as early as April 25, 2015! [311]
In terms of Amn Khoury, I don't see how Amin_Khoury is considered to be noteworthy. YRCW has a CEO James L. Welch and the company is a fortune 500 yet he has no article. [[312]] What did he accomplish?! His firms website is listed as a source and according to the author Niteshift, a martial arts website isn't a good source for a martial artist. [313] So how is it a business website reliable for a businessman? I saw the various arguments used including notability is not inherited and other stuff exists. I learned rapidly these terms when I have had about 6 my articles placed on AFD at once by a small group of editors? Feb 23, 2015 [314][315][316][317][318][319] Feb 24 [320] It was overwhelming. I thought there was something to it. [321] I wondered what was the similarities between the individuals and there was 2 things (100 percent of them did Judo and 7 out of 8 were African American). When I made that statement, I was said to have implied racial implications. [322] The funny thing is that I saw that most of my articles in general that were deleted were African American or individuals of black descent. Strange coincidence? Possible WP:WORLDVIEW ?
Now I keep getting attacked because of my grammar. [323] I was even mocked for it by Niteshift36 [324] It seem that sadly, I am an innercity male where ebonics or African American Vernacular English is the language people speak. 91 percent of wikipedians are white males. [325] . Myself and most blacks speak very different, often listen to different music, and have a different relationship with the authorities from that of the average white male. Yet I am attacked for it? That is a bit unfair! I am told to go read rules and write "properly?" I am told by Niteshift36 that I am butthurt and make a crap factory and it is ok? [326]. Even earlier on April 9 he referred to me as "Crazy"Aces [327] on an AN/I . Even Bishonen stated that it was bullying "P. S., I just realized what CrazyAces meant by "he just referred to me as CrazyAces" above. Stop bolding the "crazy" part when you refer to the user, Niteshift36. Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying. Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)." Niteshift36 stated that " But you and WordSeventeen stroking each others, um , egos with barnstars " (implying a sexual innuendo). [1] Yet I had , I got blocked for personal attacks when I put forth a corelation of articles [328] and he blatantly has stated nasty things about me and nothing happens? He has a long history of personal attacks. [329]
I created an article Racial bias on Wikipedia and was being judged on it. Problem is that it exists on wikipedia despite what people say. It was nominated for an AFD and was speedy keep. [330] Do I believe that WP:WORLDVIEW exists on wikipedia? Sure do!
The only thing that I asked is that Niteshifts behavior and repeated personal attacks be looked into. That TheGracefulSlick be WP:IBANed from interacting with me. I made one request and it was ignored. [331]
To be honest, I believe nothing will come about from this. Niteshifts repeated personal attacks will be glossed over at the most a slap on the wrist. My request for an IBAN will be ignored despite violations of WP:Hounding[332][333] I will probably be reprimanded for something and or told that I am playing the role of the victim. It will be said that I have poor grammar, make bad articles, or the sort. I am pretty much semi-retired. I wanted to finish up a few articles Florendo and Paul Vizzio and quit. CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you post the exact same thing at ANI? Bishonen, please accept my apology for having any part in attracting this to your talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
CA no one is "attacking" you for being an African-American. I didn't even know you were black until you said so here. It's because you refuse to adhere to policy no matter which account you are on. It's almost a necessity that I did basic editing on your articles because they are so poorly written. Yes, I will vote "delete" on them, but so will 99% of all other users. It has nothing to do with whatever conspiracy you want to dream up. The sad thing is, the field of work you assimilate yourself with needs help, but this only hurts it which is a shame.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
CrazyAces489, you used both accounts at the same time, making a significant amount of edits on both. Bishonen offered to overlook that infraction IF you went through with a good faith WP:CLEANSTART with full disclosure. Is it fair to say that you are no longer interested in doing that? --SubSeven (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, I find that very hard to believe considering the username NEGROLEAGUEHISTORIAN and the fact that a large number of my articles are African American's. Articles such as Racial bias on Wikipedia to 1972 Olympics Black Power salute to even Discrimination in bar exam. My articles are often written in African American Vernacular English. To you they might be poorly written because you may not be black. I personally know plenty of blacks who understand my writing. I even tagged one article you had called Blind Connie Williams to which you deleted [334] Why should my work on African Americans be assimilated or need help? I believe the subject matter to be quite important! CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So because you enjoy writing poorly written articles about African Americans, I should assume you are black? That is unfair in its own right. The subject is very important, but you obviously don't take it seriously, since people tell you how to improve but you refuse to do so. And it's not just me, everyone thinks they are poorly created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course that username meant you were black because only black people can edit articles about black topics, right? Again, this isn't the Ebonics Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. You are free to start a AAVE Wikipedia. You can be the Jimbo Wales of Ebonics. If I go to the Spanish Wikipedia and edit with Cuban slang, I'll be rightfully corrected. I also won't complain that "my people" understand it.
Those were signs not the only thing that showed it. 2 months ago on an AN/I I stated my background. Sorry again AAVE is a type of English like the Queens English or Patois. My people as in my friends. (which is common usage in AAVE) CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I understood what "my people" means. I quoted it to connect what I was saying to your particular wording. The problem is, AAVE isn't generally accepted. It may be spoken among some of "your people", but that doesn't mean it is acceptable. And please, don't point out some very isolated college class that allows it because for every one that does, 500+ don't. In any case, your grammar is only a small part of your editing issues. I suspect you're focusing on that now because you want to throw the race card in again and try to blame more things on systemic bias. It's not bias that makes your sources unreliable. It's not grammar that's making your articles get deleted at AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
An injustice somewhere is an injustice everywhere. AAVE is generally accepted by many people and is used by many people. I believe that there is a glass ceiling that exists in america. Just because racism isn't blatant now than it was before does not mean it doesn't exist. I am not throwing in the "race card" for the heck of it. I am pointing out obvious problems. If you think that there isn't racism or discrimination in America anymore ; you don't see the world threw the lends of a minority in America. Niteshift you have stated multiple times that my articles are poorly written and have bad grammar. The sources are the sources. I put something in, and it gets gutted. So I just started to make stubs. Less work and less headaches. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd correct your misstatements (such as the notion that a source was rejected on the basis of grammar), and your incorrect choice of words again (lens, not lends), but Bishonen has requested that you stop posting here and my answer would just tempt you into more posting. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, CrazyAces. The amount of posting you do, you're making the "Retired" template on your page look a bit silly. Please stop copypasting all the complaints you've ever had on this website all over the place ad nauseam, before you're blocked as a complete waste of time. I'm almost ready to propose an indefinite block for you in the ANI thread. Please don't post on my page again; let's keep it on ANI. Bishonen | talk20:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
You and Tokyogirl are the most familiar with the situation. Didn't mean to annoy you. I only posted it 2 places. I see conversations going on everywhere and was trying to address them. I will put semi-retired back. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of all, thanks for blocking User:Handpolk from editing for some time. After seeing the block sign on his talk page, I just want to add that he was also vandalizing my talk page during the night and later he started the same thing on User:2005's talk page (you already mentioned User:TheGracefulSlick so I left him out of here). Furthermore he has double standards – he can edit his or other user's talk page whenever he feels like it (add, revert, delete, etc.), but other users can't do the same. And he made constant threats to other users about this kind of thing handing warnings like free candy whereas he should have really gave all those warnings to himself. So thanks again and take care! – Sabbatino (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: I completely forgot. He calls everything trolling when he doesn't like something... – Sabbatino (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't look further back than the recent stuff, but I did suspect there was probably more. You may have noticed he barely admits the examples I mentioned, in his unblock request. The point about double standards is well taken. Bishonen | talk14:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
Sure. I've already commented on that, in general terms. Already removed. But then it's generally true that you have to read Handpolk's page via the history. Bishonen | talk16:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
While I agree that he can delete things from his own talk page (though I think it's rude and immature), deleting other peoples' comments from other peoples' talk pages is not kosher, I think. Nor is referring to everything as "trolling". Ugh.--Jorm (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I had hopes for Handpolk after his Gamergate topic ban, he moved on to other subjects. Even though he called me a shill, I thought he had intelligence. But he can turn the simplest disagreements into a battleground, this seems to occur on many articles he works on and he holds a grudge. I thought, like many inexperienced editors, Gamergate brought out the worst in him, but he seems to be argumentative in multiple other places. He suffers from what I call Have-to-have-the-last-wordism. Unless the other editor says, "Enough, forget this", this seems to inevitably lead to a revert war. LizRead!Talk!01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Man, did the trolls come after your talk page tonight! It's good you have talk page stalkers who matched them edit-for-edit. LizRead!Talk!01:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask you and don't want to create a new section for that. Where can I report IP addresses? There's this one IP address that keeps vandalising various NBA teams' pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Silly me. I visited that page about 3–4 days ago. I think it's time for me to bookmark that page. Thanks anyway! – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Just want some clarification. Is this an alternative account you just created or a sock of some other user you had issues with? If sock, get the IP checked, might have been someone you had issues recently like a user you blocked or warned. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally, Odysseus and NeilN, in fact it turned out there was a sleeper which possibly read your tip, Odysseus, and proceeded like this:[335] — ten edits exactly. (Not that I mind the beans, Odysseus. They made me laugh, which AFAIC more than outweighs any and all manifestations of Nadia's dull little hobby.) Bishonen | talk11:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Must be editing from an IP range, I see there's been another sock blocked. Bishonen, did you get my email from a couple of days ago? Doug Weller (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I did, sorry. It fell off the table, I'll try to get to it. I know who this latest character is — an established editor blowing up — now checkuserblocked by Risker. It was kind of obvious per WP:DUCK, too. Bishonen | talk09:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
So, supposing that I'm really old. Like, I'm really really old. Suppose I'm so old that the most notorious ArbCom in Wikipedia history dealt with me, and I'm back, but I'm not really back? You know, like I'm just filling some time between sending out CV's and stuff and just puttering around? So, what am I supposed to do to tell the officials that I used to be someone before I became who I appear to be? Should I put a note on my user page saying, "This user used to be Someone" or "I am Someone" or "I may be Someone?" After all, I understand, better than most, the severe repercussions of not having every single edit listed properly. We all know who we're working for, after all, and it's the boss. Hithladaeus (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Aside from normal curiosity, I had to laugh at the thought that there's a most notorious arbcom case. I can think of at least six cases that have been referred to in that way. Risker (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say mine was the most notorious case. I was saying only that that particular ArbCom committee is the most notorious. Whether or not my case created a stink, I don't know. I left, and, unlike most folks who do that, I really left. I don't think I even visited the site more than once a year as a user for quite a few years. (I was proud of leaving comments on some talk pages, a snide or exasperated remark here or there, but that was it.) This summer, I thought I might try to actually fix an article, so I created this account. I still haven't gotten a round tuit, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Can't imagine it would be a problem. Work on CV or develop Wikipedia Userpage....what to do .... I'd like to see the sanction for this notorious case Editor Someone is Topic Banned from the area of Gainful Employment, broadly construed. Someone may appeal this sanction, after such time the committee deems suitable, with a properly formatted CV and User Page. Passing 9-0. For the Arbitration Committee. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The advice of this dinosaur to you, young man, is to not worry about what the officials think about you. There are enough of us now who appreciate your massive contributions to this project that your reputation is safe. It was the most notorious ArbCom case though, Risker - even Brad was ashamed afterwards. --RexxS (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RexxS, but I also want to say that Brad had nothing to be ashamed of. He did all he could to stop the oncoming train. Bishonen | talk09:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
I was thinking of the supposed issue of that day. Supposedly, I was operating a second account without putting an official sticker on the second account's page, and that was the reason that ArbCom members on a list-serve, without an actual case, had to act without a proceeding. If I am to even putter about, I was thinking I might be accidentally tripping over some bizarre regulation again.
By the way, at the time, I kept wondering why everyone going around trying to "prove" that I was this or that account, when they could have just asked me. I've always thought that investigations can be made much simpler by asking people questions.
See, I figure that getting better material from the nDNB for some of the articles would be cool, and there is adding in material for discussions of substantial works from authors, etc. I.e. I think I can see something to do other than just vote in AfD's, but I'm not going to deal well with another set of "But I have been investigating with NSA-like efficiency and can prove that you were here from 2002-2008 and did not put the required category tag on your user page!" things. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
But everybody who knew your contributions already knew you ran a second account from work - it's not like your style is difficult to spot. Things have matured to some extent here in the interim. You have a new account now because you choose to; there's no question about evading scrutiny, and you have no sanctions outstanding. A well-respected admin is aware of your previous account (as is a thoroughly disreputable dinosaur), and we're both able to vouch for your bona fides. That's generally accepted nowadays, and there's bugger-all chance that anyone will be daft enough to accuse you of abusing multiple accounts in future. FWIW, I have access to JSTOR and parts of Elsevier as well as ODNB, so feel free to ping me if I can find any documents for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and I probably will take you up on that. My work facilities are a bit on the cheapish side. We have JSTOR, but it's limited. However, "work" bought a number of the best reference works back when it was in higher heather, so it has the physical OED,nDNB, and Grove Dictionary of music. It has not, in my time, ever had adequate serials access, though, which has hurt my publications. (I've only published two tiny articles, and both of them I feel ashamed of, because I feel as if I didn't do an adequate literature review beforehand because I couldn't.) For Wikipedia, being able to synthesize disparate reputable references could be valuable.
The oDNB, for example, is sometimes better than what replaced it, because some of the entries are obsessively detailed, and the nDNB style sheet limited the authors. (Cf. "Jonathan Swift" in both, and you'll see what I mean. The 2004 is clearer and cleaner, but it has much, much less information.) On the other hand, the oDNB allowed editorial points of view. If we take Jonathan Swift as an example, again, the author feels the need to combat the notion that Swift was an insane misanthropist. No one today would. The 1898 authors were on the cusp of English literature becoming an accepted field of study (really), and most of them were shaking off the Macaulay and Carlyle paradigms. Most of them were, but not all of them. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A bit daft of me to edit the section and leave default edit summary with "rm vandalism." You should be proud to know that you were the only subject in all the WP realm with honorificabilitudinitatibus to receive such flowery phrasing whilst the rest of us feed from the alms-basket of usernames. --DHeyward (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
Well, I'm being singled out for attention by this user, and I guess the page (or, if not, its history) shows why. Hmm... I'm gonna go check if Risker has been distinguished too. Bishonen | talk16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
I suspect you are right. I searched with the Google query "site:8ch.net Dustin V. S." and found zero relevant results. Thanks for the response. Dustin(talk)16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: Excuse me?
Sorry about that. Not so much "fat-finger" as "skinny text on an iPad screen + mobile-version page rendering". In other words, I was trying to tap the "DIff" link but missed, and the page it showed me was the awful mobile version; hitting the "Request desktop site" button seems to have saved my mistake as an actual edit. --Calton | Talk21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem — I could have sworn I'd already replied, sorry, Calton. Must have forgotten to hit save. Don't even talk to me about mobile devices. I have to use 'em sometimes, as seldom as possible — I hate 'em with a passion. Bishonen | talk08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Page deletion
Hi, Bishonen,
I hope you can advise me. I was straightening out the talk page archives of WikiProject Poker, some of the archives were numbered (Archive 1), some were marked by year (Archive 2013) and no archives were listed in the talk page archive box after 2009 though they did exist. I wanted to make use of {{aan}} so I changed the later archives to numbered pages but there was one glitch. There was a page that was listed in the talk page archive box as Wikipedia talkWikiProject Poker/Archive 6|2009 and a page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 2009 that existed but was not listed. I mistakenly moved the later page to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 because I thought I was just moving Archive 2009 to Archive 6. Then I noticed my naming mistake so I tried to move the page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I couldn't because it already existed. So, I moved the contents of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker/Archive 6 and I'd like to delete the mistakenly titled move page but I can't find a CSD criteria that applies here and I can't use PROD because that is not utilized in Wikipedia talk space. I realize now that I should have merged the histories since they were two archives covering the same year but I didn't notice that were two separate archives pages that existed until I tried moving the mistakenly titled archive page to the correct title.
That’s certainly suggestive. Whoever’s sock it is, it’s not a new user, and the quacking is really loud… I’ve duck blocked and added a malformed report at the SPI, which I hope somebody will fix. (I'm on a new computer, it's killing me.) Thank you, The Banner. Bishonen | talk16:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks very much, Favonian. Did I not even remember to actually block the sock? No surprises there. Apart from general absentmindedness stupidity, I was trying to maneouvre a new browser, on my mother's new computer (that I was trying out for her), with only intermittent use of a mouse, which my son kept borrowing for other purposes. The nightmare of family life. Bishonen | talk17:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Revdel?
Hi there, just stopping by to suggest that this edit be revdel'd. It appears to match a previous comment by that IP giving advice to blocked users on how to create sockpuppets which was previously revdel'd so I can't link to it. Cheers. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Revdel all those, Ivanvector..? (There are six identical posts.) Thank you for reverting, NQ. I'm not much of a one for honoring that kind of trolling with revdel, as if it was something important, or in this case as if they were sharing important secrets with those blocked users (bah). That's my personal view. Maybe another admin will be more amenable. Oh, and I've blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
I would say yes, nuke 'em all. I don't know what the rationale was for deleting the first one but I figure if one was worth deleting, then they all are. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But was the first one worth deleting? That's my point, admins can disagree about that stuff. (Hint: if you feel strongly about it, ask the guy who did the first one.) Bishonen | talk18:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
Sorry!
Oh man, I'm sorry that I missed all of the CrazyAces stuff! (sighs) I remember getting pinged and figured that I'd dive into it the next day, but then ended up getting caught up in family stuff this past weekend. Sorry about that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, little geisha, never be sorry for family stuff! Wikipedia only hobby! And thread still open in case wishes to opine after all, but never if stressful! bishzillaROARR!!06:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC).
Please do not alter or remove text from my personal talk page
Keep your hands to yourself, do not touch my text or writing on my own personal talk page. Tom Northshoreman has a history of erasing or altering people's text on the Leo Frank talk page. I just checked the archives, he has done it not only to me, but to other people as well in the past. This disruptive and POV behavior is unacceptable. I posted on my talk page, a question asking who I must contact to report his (Tom Northshoreman's) infantile behavior. My post was not a call for some random person to come along and delete my text. Do not alter the text on my personal talk page. THANK YOU. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
If you don't understand the use of talkpages, despite having been here for quite some time (over a year, I make it, including your previous account), you'd do yourself a favour by listening to people who do. Did you not notice that in my edit summary, I answered your question as to who you must contact to report the user in question? Answered it quite fully. Here, I'll quote it for you: If you want admins to sanction or warn Tom N, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. With evidence (diffs), of course." You're welcome. I've removed the note on your page again, as it is inappropriate and also not needed, now that you know where to appropriately place your complaint. Please don't restore it again. You have certain rights over your talkpage, but you're wrong in thinking it's your 'personal' talkpage in the sense that you own it. Incidentally, I see that when you reverted me, you also took the opportunity to flesh out your personal attack against User:Doug Weller. I'll block you for personal attacks| if you continue to be so rude. Thank you. Bishonen | talk17:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Can you please show me where it says its allowed for other people (not the subject) to modify, edit or alter other peoples personal notes on their personal talk pages? You removed content from my personal talk page, that I wanted to keep there for my own historical records. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Telling me to hunt for something on a page doesn't answer my question. I want an answer why my own notes, on my personal talk page, were deleted with no notes left. I dont want people touching my personal talk page without my permission or a clear explanation. Bishonen simply deleted my post, without any comment on my talk page. I don't appreciate this rude and disruptive behavior on my talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thomas W, Tom Northshoreman, was deleting my posts on the Leo Frank page, and I have a right to bring it up on my own talk page. bishonen deleted my post on my talk page without asking me about it, without leaving any notes on my talk page, with no indication at all. He just deleted my posts about Tom Northshoreman, who has been deleting peoples posts on the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would never modify, edit or alter anything you wrote on your page or elsewhere, GingerBreadHarlot. I will remove inappropriate stuff, though. You have now put the stuff I removed on WP:AN, where it goes reasonably well (not as well as it would have done on WP:ANI, which I recommended, but whatever). As for why I removed it from your page, what Cassianto said. Your historical records remain in the page history, btw; it's all still there. [Added after edit conflict]: You have now again talked about your "personal talkpage" just exactly as if you haven't read a word either I, MarnetteD or Thomas.W have said about that matter. I'm not sure there's any use telling you anything. Bishonen | talk19:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
GingerBreadHarlot, that doesn't negate the fact that you are publishing a personal thoughts about someone in a negative tone. Jesus, I know I'm an uncivil bastard at times, but even I'd never do that. In any case, what makes you think that people would even want to know that? CassiantoTalk19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
To Bishonen and Cassianto, IT IS NOT personal though, He is deleting my posts on the Leo Frank talk page and he is doing it to others. I have a right to post information about this on my talk page. Do not delete posts on my talk page. Quote from Thomas.W: Here's a quote from Wikipedia's talk page guidelines: "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by improper ownership behavior". Your user talk page is not your personal page, but is intended solely for communication between you and other editors about the project, that is Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 18:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, Read the quote above, that's exactly what I did. I posted an issue I have with Tom Northshoreman on my "personal" talk page ("personal" referring to mine), and asked for help to improve the encyclopedia because of a disruptive editor. Bishonen, You wiped out the entire post I made explaining the problem and asking for help. Why are you deleting posts from my talk page in a disruptive manner without leaving public notes, when I'm asking for help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, my question was what do I do when someone like Tom Northshoreman is doing disruptive behavior, deleting my posts from Leo Frank talk page. The archives show he did this in the past to other users. This is disruptive behavior. Bishonen, do not delete my questions and concerns on my talk page, that have to do we me trying to learn the proper methods on wikipedia. Stop this disruptive behavior. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's personal inasmuch that you are broadcasting advice to others about an editor whom you are having problems with. That is not what a talk page is for. I'm failing to understand why you are having trouble in understanding this. CassiantoTalk19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, Cassianto, I'm failing to understand it too, but never mind. I have indeffed the user per NOTHERE. See their talkpage for extended rationale if you're interested. (But please don't post there. Blocked users don't generally welcome, or profit from, further criticism.) Bishonen | talk19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen. Regarding your ban of GingerBreadHarlot, (i am just an editor). I have also participated on that same Leo Frank article and have been trying to figure out GingerBreadHarlot motives. I have a feeling that this person is for whatever reason unable to control their emotions regarding this particular topic (based on looking over their edit history). For whatever reason, (and here I speculate), but it almost seems as though there is some kind of a deeper issue (blood relative?) that is preventing the editor from acting rational. Over the years I've seen many editors who are 'allergic to a topic' - unable to control their behavior, yet drawn to that very topic. Self destructive behavior. I always was interested in researching this behavior as my hypothesis is that it may be related to a real life traumatic event such as a loss of a 'father figure'(speculation on my part of-course). I am wondering if you would consider a topic ban instead, and some kind of a (heavily) conditional reinstatement. If refocused, I think the editor has the potential to benefit Wikipedia, when the emotional trigger is removed. Of-course if they continue to act in the same manner, while editing an article about a completely unrelated topic (for example) gardenias, then there are deeper overall issues with the editor that would make them a lost cause. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker): Do we have any evidence regarding how this editor would act outside this particular topic area? I took an extensive look at their contributions earlier today (I was considering blocking them myself) and I found no evidence that this editor has any intereste in editing anything unrelated to antisemitism, white nationalism, and holocaust denial. Gamaliel (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel, I agree. Hello, Meishern. Actually the examples of disruptive editing I mentioned in my block rationale[336] were related to Kevin B. MacDonald (as more recent), not to Leo Frank. GingerBreadHarlot has been pushing an agenda over multiple articles, so a topic ban from Leo Frank, as I assume you mean, wouldn't answer the purpose of stopping the disruption. What they're interested in is to stop what they call the "anti-gentilism" of Wikipedia.[337] A gentile is of course a non-jew, and anti-gentilism as a term of opprobium goes with a white power or neo-nazi agenda, see for instance [338] and [339]. Google for more if you have the stomach for it… oh, here's a nice illustrative example of how the word is used. A topic ban from antisemitism, white nationalism, and holocaust denial, and/or from BLP's, wouldn't answer either in my opinion. It's not something we normally do with persistent single-purpose accounts, not even where their purpose is less repugnant than this one (because I'm not going to pretend my feelings are neutral on that score), simply because it hardly ever works — it just wastes more time. We block them. Bishonen | talk12:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC).
Thank you Bishonen and Gamaliel, for taking the time to break it all down for me. I also haven't encountered the word 'anti-gentilism' but it seems to be a part of a new strategy to repackage supremacist ideology as an 'ideology of victimhood'. The use of the word 'gentile' is obviously a dog-whistle to ensure that there are no misunderstandings as to the identity of who they see as the 'oppressor' behind 'anti-gentilism'. I understand that banning such propagandists is the only option since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a center for 'deprogramming' editors of false and dangerous beliefs. I guess I just wish there was some way to change their irrational views, deprogram them somehow, especially regarding well documented historical events such as the Nazi government policy of mass-extermination of Jews by invading Nazi units created for that very purpose or via transport to locations whose only purpose was mass-murder. It's as irrational as believing that no atom bombs were dropped on any Japanese city during WW2. I thought that perhaps while editing gardenias people like that can be 'shown the light'. However you both are experienced in what's effective when dealing with such single-purpose editors, unlike me, and I defer to your judgement, and must admit that a clever editor can bend any subject, including gardenias, to push their agenda, and so I withdraw the suggestion from my previous message. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
tps New word for me. "anti-gentilism." First time I heard that. It's one thing to be offended by being called "anti-semitic" or "neo-nazi" but that's usually because such terms are meant to be offensive since those views are offensive. Quite different to believe the views are okay but the label isn't. In general we should avoid terms like "anti-semitic" or "neo-nazi" because they are pejoratives when applied to those that don't identify as such, especially living people. Very problematic to treat people that hold those views as victims. Much easier call than the argument i had to referree where a PC white american was arguing with an indigenous U.S. citizen that preferred to be called "Indian" rather than "Native American." Didn't think being named after a colonial white explorer did justice to his heritage and thought "indian" was less fake. Juxtaposed it with "if you want to call us Native Americans, why don't you want to call Palestinians 'Native Israelis'? I hate labels. But at least no one argued that the indigenous people weren't victims or the real victims were european settlers. Good block. Please watch talk page too in case it gets louder. In an odd way, some of the Ashkenazi articles feed these views and they should be watched too as what seems like a positive edit really fuels stereotypes like these and not all edits/editors are beneficial. Wouldn't surprise me if they snuck MacDonald references into these articles. --DHeyward (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's up to each individual indigenous person to decide what they are comfortable with. Probably each is most comfortable with the name of the tribal nation that each is a member of instead of being all lumped together (by white settlers) into one single group. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Andrea Brillantes article - there are some gross violations of WP:BLP policy in the article history, which I think need revdelling. I think further action may be needed too, concerning the contributors responsible for adding the material - at least one of them seems to think that WP:BLP policy wasn't being violated, [340] and frankly, I don't think he should be trusted to edit BLP's at all. I'd raise this at ANI, but would rather not draw more attention to the matter for obvious privacy reasons. There are also grounds to suspect sockpuppetry, in that one of the contributors responsible edited the other one's post. [341] Admin zzuuzz has semi-protected the article, but doesn't seem to have proceeded further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@AndyTheGrump: I don't think Oripaypaykim is a sock of Angelo6397. Oripaypaykim seems to have virtually every BLP of a Philippine celebrity on their watchlist (many of which are also on my watchlist) and is very active in reverting unconstructive activity on them (including reverting socks of very prolific Philippine serial vandal Christian2941), and my impression is that Oripaypaykim reverted the edits on Andrea Brillantes only because it was unexplained removal of content by IPs, without checking what it was. The editor interaction tool also shows very little overlap between the two, so if I was a clerk at SPI (which I have no desire to be...), I'd ask for a lot more evidence than the kneejerk reverts and fixing a link in a post. Thomas.W talk10:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You may be right - but why did Oripaypaykim follow me to Angelo6397's talk page in the first place? Anyway, checkuser isn't my decision to make, and if it is declined, I'll leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that it is Oripaypaykim proclaiming their innocence while accidentally being logged out. Which makes one wonder if they have the language proficiency needed to be active on the English language Wikipedia, no matter how good their intentions are. Thomas.W talk11:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup - now posting on my talk page. [344] Seems to be Oripaypaykim, though I have no way to positively match the IP with the account. And yes, I have to wonder whether someone with English skills that poor should be editing at all - with the best will in the world, if you can't communicate, mistakes are inevitable, and can have serious consequences, as has been amply demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Judging by their posts on your talk page their English skills are virtually non-existent, a machine translation from Tagalog or whatever to English would probably be better than that. Thomas.W talk11:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it is Oripaypaykim, and we aren't being trolled (which seems unlikely), I will have to concede that the SPI isn't needed - Angelo6397 can certainly communicate better than that. It looks like you are right - Oripaypaykim just blindly reverted without reading (or understanding?) the material in question. Or possibly understood it, but doesn't understand WP:BLP policy. Which leaves us with the problem of what to do about a good-faith contributor who's lack of English-language skills makes them a liability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
If you check out Oripaykim's last edit so far, you'll see that he activated the wikibreak enforcer, to be active till 1 October 2015.[345] So that was what he was saying nine minutes later, using his IP, at the SPI, and then at your page, Andy. I would say that constitutes a positive identification. He hasn't stopped editing, but continued using the IP, seemingly for gnomish edits that don't require English skills. I suppose we can leave him doing that. I'll comment on the SPI, and close it. Bishonen | talk14:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
All I can really say is that (a) I don't really have anything helpful to contribute, as it's not an area of interest for me and I don't see any other particular "help" that I could have provided, and (b) I don't see how simply removing the talkback template from my talk page, with a calm and polite edit summary to explain it, was a response I needed to somehow "be nicer" about — I don't see how I wasn't "nice" enough about it already. It's not as though I attacked or chided the IP for it, I just removed the template. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
By "help" I meant you could have suggested some other venue for them. I thought the mere removal of the template, with this impatient edit summary was quite chiding. But if you don't see how you could have been nicer to a bewildered new user, who actually wanted to improve an article, we'll just have to agree to disagree, as they say in this constipated passive-aggressive place. Bishonen | talk18:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
He's made good use of Zambian proxies, I see. I'll eat my banhammer if he was anywhere near Zambia, or even on the right continent, when he used those IPs, but there's not much point in blocking them. I've blocked User:The History of Iran and closed the SPI per quack quack. Bishonen | talk19:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
Sorry you had to overcaffeinate/destress. It's like whack-a-mole, it's grinding on the soul to constantly have to deal with these endless sockpuppets. Ogresssmash!19:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: You have to provide diffs in your SPI reports, or they won't handle the case. I've done it this time, plus added a comment of my own, I wasn't fast enough this time, though, by the time I had compiled everything and clicked save, Bishonen had already blocked them. Thomas.W talk19:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
((edit conflict) and I had already closed, Tom, but it's still useful to have your diffs for future reference.) Well, sometimes it can be exhilarating, actually, Ogress, and sometimes I feel sorry for them, but that character is just so consistently unpleasant, there's nothing redeeming about them ever, I don't know how Thomas.W used to put up with it. And then tea is best, or coffee for those that prefer it. :-) Have something sweet with coffee, Ogress. You too, Tom. Bishonen | talk19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
How frustrating, Twinkle does not seek diffs for SPI like it does on AIV. YAY CAKE AND COLD BREW! (Have you ever had it? It's brilliant smooth unbitter joyyyyyyy) Ogresssmash!20:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It was a sneaky user name Spalagdama chose, BTW, probably hoping that people would believe that it was HistoryofIran, an editor with 17,000+ edits, who made the edit, and not check it. Thomas.W talk20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Sweden, Texas, where the population peaked at 25 in 1914? Well, OK. But it's a little extraordinary what this editor's been doing: removing info like that on a large scale.[346] Ignore the top 10-15 edits and look further down, because they stopped doing it when I wrote on their page; but they will not discuss or explain. I'm thinking of clicking the dreaded "rollback all" button, but I'm not even sure how that works — would I be able to configure or limit it in some way, once I've clicked? I'd better ask at the VP first. Or something. Or forget the whole thing and smell the flowers some more. Yes, that's quite tempting. The roses are putting on a show in the park. Bishonen | talk22:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC).
Indeed, if you click rollback it will revert all the sequenced edits by the last person to edit the page. MONGO have great problems using stupid-phone accidental rollback common due to phone issues...not a MONGO issue...no way....never...ever. I get the faint impression you're disputing the international location of Sweden, ahem. MONGO smell rose...eat dandelions which also make a fine wine for the less sophisticated. Rose appreciated...brightens up beast-cave!--MONGO23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
For the location of Sweden, compare the non-mainstream speculations about the location of Sicily here, see especially the first footnote, where significantly the Baltic is mentioned. Sweden may be an alternative name for this mobile Sicily. About rollback: yes, but there's also a "rollback all" button, maybe only for admins, which appears at the top of a user's contributions. It's not for a particular page, but for the particular user. Presumably the idea is that you can get rid of all the "contributions" of a fast-moving vandal in a simple way. But this is not a vandal, so it's probably too drastic, unless it's possible to fiddle with it to only rollback the edits in a certain timespan. But it's frustrating the way I can't find any info about it. Seems to be a sekrit tool. :-( Tps ahoy? Bishonen | talk11:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
Am thoroughly impressed by the speed of Sicily, far outstripping San Seriffe. As for the sekrit rollbaking, typically there's a Wikipedia page for it at Wikipedia:Rollback. Many years ago it was admin only, then it was spread out to Rollbackers. To be used for vandalism only, severe pain if used without explanation on good faith edits. Hence various clever tools that I never did learn. . dave souza, talk11:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both. Presumably I have Writty's script then… who knows what-all scripts I have. Just like I suspected, it's too drastic to use here. I do believe the edits were made in good faith, though it's very awkward that the user won't reply to my (now repeated) questions. And there really are a lot of those edits. Bishonen | talk16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
[Waves tiny dino hand excitedly] Me! Me! I know what scripts:
I suppose so, RexxS — I'm just not sure where one ends and the next begins, you know? I wish my socks had 'em too. No, that's not a hint, I know you unfortunately can't edit them. Hey, I have an idea — you could log in as me and edit 'em! My password is... [Bishonen pushes Darwinbish away from her keyboard at the last moment. You're a very naughty little footfish! What do you want segregate refs for anyway?] Bishonen | talk21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
Hey, didn't a lot of ships wreck on the Aisles of Sicily? I remember that a nekkid opera singer showed up there, once. She was dead, though. Then, in WW2, a bunch of ghosts moved in. Or maybe they were Guernsey cows. (By the way, I'm getting another chance to be an official Non-juror again. My work wants a purity oath.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
There will be no discussion of balls. It's a violation -- not to mention what it does to the balls. Purity is an eternal concern, for we have been in a state of permanent revolution, and each occupant of the captain's tower comes in to "fix" things, and the obvious way of doing that is by assuring everyone of the purity of the employees. (Syllogism: God rewards the virtuous. Finances are tight. :: Someone must not be virtuous. Thus, the ring is complete.) The last time, we were threatened with a compulsory auto da fe. This time, it's assured. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
It was part of the sanction for violating this remedy. Is that a problem? Are you saying only blocks are authorized to be used for enforcement of that sanction? Bishonen | talk11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
Thank you Callanecc. I think the IBAN is appropriate and desirable per the discussion here, but I'm not in the mood to mire myself further in the bureaucracy of arbitration enforcement right now. Yesterday I spent what may have been the dreariest 6 hours of my life (outside of a hospital) just trying to get the notice of the sanction right on Collect's page. I'll take a look later and decide whether to remove the IBAN, or keep it and refer to the discretionary sanctions for Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 instead. Since Collect is both blocked and absent, and thus unlikely to post in a way that involves MrX any time soon, I suppose there's no immediate urgency. Bishonen | talk16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
Since User:Collect was a named party in WP:ARBAP2 he qualifies as being aware of the discretionary sanctions under that case. They were adopted by the Committee on 19 June. The conduct for which Bishonen is imposing the sanction appears to fall within the domain of AP2. She has issued a one-way IBAN from User:MrX. There are no notice requirements for the other party, MrX since it's a one-way ban. If Bishonen decides she wants to use the AP2 case then she can log the sanction in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#American politics 2. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
While the IBan may be one way, I disagree that MrX shouldn't have been informed. Not assuming that MrX would use the Iban to his advantage but he still needed to be aware in case it was breached.--MONGO19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I did inform MrX right away,[347] and if/when I have some more template fun on Collect's page and in the logs (sigh, but thanks for the helpful links, EdJohnston), I'll inform him again. It may not be required, but it's common sense, both in case the ban is breached by Collect (which I certainly don't anticipate), and even more because MrX needs to be careful about mentioning Collect. Indeed, the sensible thing to do for the non-banned party in these cases is to act as if the ban were mutual, and I'd be surprised if MrX didn't do that. Bishonen | talk19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
I saw the notification to MrX. Not to be a bore, but don't forget to log the Iban here and at the log that can be accessed via the link from that section. In the unlikely event I ever got to be an admin again, AE is one venue I would never seek out...I'd stick to just blocking obvious vandals and dealing with sure bet speedies. Better yet, I could just block Jumbo and arbcom indefinitely just for fun!--MONGO20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I logged it here instead, because I've I-banned Collect per the discretionary sanctions authorized for American politics post 1932, I think it was. See WP:ARBAPDS. MONGO, you and I will both be experts at ruling 87654785, section jhft, amendment q, third paragraph, before this is over. They tried to trick me, indeed, but I saw where it said "except discretionary sanctions" here, ha. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC). Adding: and there's a link to that log in the new improved template I've posted on Collect's page. God, I hope the unfortunate man doesn't get an e-mail every time I mess with his page. Bishonen | talk21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi, I apologize, I didn't realize anyone else was copyediting this page. I wanted to promote it for DYK, but it needed some work. Are you able to make your changes again on the new copy? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
You've reverted my copyedits, Yoninah? :-( That's quite disappointing. Didn't you get an edit conflict? No, I'm sorry, I don't have the time or inclination to start over. Perhaps you can do a version that merges your improvements with mine. Bishonen | talk19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
On looking some more, you probably haven't lost much by overwriting me—don't worry. Your version looks OK. Bishonen | talk19:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. I just went ahead and incorporated your fixes and removal of birth/death dates. I think it's ready to promote for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
If uncontent with content contented in men's eyes
(I recently did that[348] sonnet, so I've been digging on the paradox.) I was correct in assuming that there was still content work to be done at Wikipedia. All of the namespace is taken by now. Even the really obscure stuff has articles, but there are dusty corners where people just don't understand what they're writing about. I ran across one such this morning: The Fable of the Bees. I don't know how you feel about Mandeville, but the American libertarians have claimed him (as was predictable) as a philosophical validation for supply-side economics, and the libertarian "Freedom ****" (fund, institute, foundation) has eagerly promoted the publication of his work. They have lumped him in with Francis Hutcheson and Adam Smith, even though both of them followed Lord Chesterfield's notions about human nature.
So, to make a long post a little longer: do you want to get involved (with me) in trying to build up a reasonable page for the poem/book? Left to my own devices, I probably won't do it, as Mandeville is off the track of my personal research these days. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the Fable, and I think one probably should try to place it in some kind of relation to today's politics, because it's kind of bursting with hints of it, but I remain non-plussed as to how, I get lost. Also compare the horse and the meadow up top. To be brief: yes, that would be cool, except that I don't think I'd be much use. Bishonen | talk17:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC).
Very well. I probably won't jump in, then. Simply looking through the "Introduction"s of multiple contemporary critical editions would have helped considerably, plus cross-checking with established histories. (As you may recall, I like Michael McKeon's discussion of the early novel where one diagnoses empiricist and paternalist positions each having two phases, naive and skeptical, and these four ideologies battling in the artwork that we eventually call "the novel.") Well, one ideological battleground was this issue of the degree of depravity of human nature. The Calvinists and Hobbes (see what I did, there?) agreed that man was filthy and wicked, while the latitudinarians and Chesterfield Shaftesbury and the Deists argued that man was either fundamentally benign or "rational." (The Wealth of Nations can't be understood without understanding that Smith believed that people are inherently good.) This ongoing polemic is one of the things that makes it impossible to lift Mandeville out of 1705-32 and into 2008-2016. He was pursuing a skeptical empiricist critique on polity (in my view), so anybody taking selfies with his corpse is getting nothing out of it. Hithladaeus (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Mate, I can't understand why you're threatening me I mean, I didn't "tag" anyone right now and I only deleted the message cause it'd give a bad impression about me. If you Luke then I may keep it as your wish but mine is always to remove such messages. Thanks RealmmbCon.Talk12:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Realmmb
Hello, Realmmb. I am a frequent visitor to Bishonen's talk page. She was talking about your tagging of articles, which in many cases is very inappropriate. A one-sentence geographical stub with an inline citation should not be festooned with {{Refimprove}}. You have continued to do this after multiple editors have pointed out the problem on your talk page. Meanwhile, you have created Djair Miranda Garcia, a biography of a living person with no references whatsoever, which is completely against Wikipedia policy. It will be deleted in 7 days if you have not added a reliable source. I suggest you improve your own articles rather than inappropriately tagging the work of others. And another word of advice... "Mate" is generally only used to address men. If you don't know the gender of the person you are addressing, avoid using it and bear in mind that many men would also prefer not to be addressed that way by a perfect stranger. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker)@Realmmb:Bishonen is a 'she'. Is that how you normally address your elders? It's okay to delete stuff from your talk page - anyone can see what you by looking in the talk page history, but it's a tad annoying when editors like yourself don't communicate. You're not obliged to, of course, but it makes interactions with others much easier if there's a two-way exchange. If you'd just acknowledge with something like "Oh, okay, I understand now" before removing that sort of post, you wouldn't get admins like Bishonen feeling the need to warn you about things such as tagging. I hope that makes sense to you. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Realmmb. I had figured out you removed my message (and the messages from other people about the same thing) because they would give a bad impression of you — it wasn't hard. But actually it's only by your own actions that you create a good or bad impression here. Your actions with regard to tags have made a rather poor impression, even though you have also placed some good tags. I was trying to talk to you about tagging, not the side issue that you remove messages. It would help if you'd reply about the tagging. Bishonen | talk14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, RexxS & Voceditenore...I'm sorry for what I wrote or in which sense I wrote it and I hope you forgive me, I admit that it was my mistake. But at least I can show my innocence about the "Mate" thing as I didn't check it out and I'm quite young too to have an experience of checking the gender before writing...I promise I won't ever delete such messages. Though will you, i.e. Bishonen allow me to delete your message from my talk page as now I've given a valid reply. RealmmbCon.Talk15:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you mean well, Realmmb, and I'm sure nobody's offended with you. You haven't said anything about the tagging, but I assume you mean you're going to be more careful and slower when you place (or remove) tags. Of course you can remove my message from your page, feel free. Bishonen | talk16:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
adnygrump splashyelephant issue
I did population and/or members it was not for who lives on the land it was for who got granted citizenship by the liberland president .the population estimate I admit was not the right thing and I am srry I did not discuss it on the talk page first. but I settled on member because they were indeed a member of liberland although they do not live there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashyelephant2003 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2015
Evidently Splashy has still not got the message - see this infantile personal attack on my talk page: [349] I have to wonder whether we are dealing with an adult here - on the face of it, I would think not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am in the process of filing an appeal against the Topic Ban you have imposed on--under the Arb Com Discretionary Sanctions-- to Arb Com . In doing so, i wish to show that i have made an effort to resolve the dispute as per the requirement. Please let me know whether there is any intervening authority to whom i can appeal your ban, or whether i need to appeal to ArbCom directly. Soham321 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, Soham321, I don't think I'll comment there. I'm surprised you went to WP:RFAR, which is not one of the venues I directed you to, both via the topic ban template and a personal note. I tell you for the third time: to appeal discretionary sanctions you have a choice between WP:ARCA, or WP:AN or WP:AE. ARCA is the way to appeal to the arbitration committee. However, ARCA is for asking the committee to clarify the arbitration case I banned you with regard to (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision), so probably not what you want. But I don't know why I keep feeding you information, as you don't seem to take it in, or to believe me. Do you think I'm trying to trick you or something? Bishonen | talk18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
If you look at the template I posted above, it says you can appeal my sanction using the process described here, where it says you can request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); or at "ARCA". Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom.
Oh FGS. Yes, WP:ARCA is an arbcom page. WP:RFAR is also an arbcom page. Why do you pick WP:RFAR, a page I didn't mention? Why don't you click on the links I give you? Clicking on my three links — here they are again, WP:ARCA, WP:AN and WP:AE — and reading the instructions for those pages and then making a decision as to which one you want to use for your appeal would be your best course of action. Not shooting off to a fourth page. You may wish to remove your RFAR filing and put it on WP:ARCA, or WP:AN or WP:AE. Bishonen | talk18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
i picked the page because i thought that is the ArbCom page and because you wrote to me "Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom." i have given the diff and even the quote in my previous edit in this section. Soham321 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
An ARCA discussion involving you has been created
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen}}
Convince him that you knew it was really him anyway and maybe you can finally profit from all this adminning. And yes, I'll be first in the queue to report you for paid editing, unless of course you can persuade me otherwise. Miami's supposed to be nice at this time of year. Valenciano (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I did really know it was him! (Intuition, not paranormal abilities.) But I shouldn't think I'll ever get to talk to him. He doesn't know he has a talkpage, just like other noob IPs. Do you have a Cayman Island account, Valenciano? Bishonen | talk21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC).
I just knew there was going to be a "blindly obey the rules" enforcer pile in with fists of ham there. Either that or a woo-woo believer would jump on the opportunity. I don't know which of those actually happened.
I think possibly the worst aspect of this Wikipedia "community management" thing is that it encourages people who have no competence at managing social projects, encouraging top-quality people to stay and keep on contributing, and nurturing those with potential, to, well, think they can do those things and do it regardless of feedback. I'm reminded of a suggestion that the difference between intelligent people and stupid people is that intelligent people know how stupid they are.
I love the experiment that is this project, and I'd hoped that mature, sensible and educated people would be recognized as those best suited to the executive branch of governance, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. Anyway, at least that Newyorkbrad chap seems to have enforced some common sense. Mr Potto (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, possibly, but if there is then it's surely only a failure to understand how to release those few words rather than anything that could possibly bring down any harm. And the answer surely wasn't to just jump on him and treat him with such disrespect, but to pause, reflect, and work out the best response. Don't you think? Mr Potto (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
NQ turned it over to me, and I've just written to the address I got, about copyright and other issues. I completely agree disrespect is bad. Bishonen | talk16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC).
Also, User:NeilN, I see you suggested at NYB's talk page that "I do not think a such a list would be allowed to stand if it was added to a biography of a subject holding views unpopular with the mainstream-focused/science-first Wikipedia community". In the light of that, I hope you don't mind if I ask whether you yourself hold any opinions unpopular with mainstream science and on which you would be at odds with Randi's scientific approach? (I'm not at all suggesting you do, I just want to encourage openness - for my part, I'm happy to reveal that in my opinion those who believe in what Randi calls "woo-woo" are at best deluded and at worst charlatans, and I'd be interested in your own opinions on such things.) Mr Potto (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Mr Potto, I think my editing and posts on fringe topics will show you where I stand, better than I could tell you. Anyone who's familiar with my participation would say I firmly support Wikipedia's policies and guidelines such as WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:BLPFRINGE. --NeilNtalk to me17:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with your editing and posts on fringe topics, but I'm happy to accept that they would indicate as you say. I thank you for your response to my question, and I hope you understand why I asked it. Mr Potto (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
... and another Spalagdama sock, this timed a named account
Constantine H(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
Making the usual bogus claims (with the usual Spalagdama edit summaries) on Gondophares, claiming that the name is derived from Gandapur, the name of a minor Pakistani/Afghan tribe, even though all sources say it's the other way around. No doubt in an attempt to glorify/embellish the history of the tribe. Compare that edit with this edit by Spalagdama's home IP (confirmed as such in the first SPI), which was blocked for 3 months on 27 April 2015, this edit by the same IP in August 2013 on Gandapur adding the same bogus claim about Gondophares being derived from Gandapur, and countless edits by mostly Zambian IPs in between, the latest one yesterday, making the same claim (see page history of Gondophares). All showing that Constantine H is the latest incarnation of Spalagdama. (I have also filed this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spalagdama, for the record if nothing else). /Tom Thomas.W talk16:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The relevant thread on ANI is closed, but as I mentioned there, your comment to User:Winkelvi was at best ill-conceived. I understand if you were getting frustrated—we all get frustrated—but I think this was an inappropriate response. In any case, even if you didn't intend to call Winkelvi an idiot, that's the message that was received. As an administrator who works to enforce civility here, it would be prudent for you to reach out and apologize. agtx16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I saw you at ANI, thanks. Perhaps I should have said "I'm tired of people who act like idiots". It really does frustrate me that any subject of a BLP, celebrity or not, should be received like that. Anyway, I very rarely work to "enforce civility". Bishonen | talk19:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for this edit summary, "removing flagrant BLP violation. if you talk about a living person in remotely such terms again, you'll be blocked. In fact, if it wasn't ten days ago, I'd block you right now". If you had the same concern for the Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis, about whom this person makes the most shameful remarks, I would have appreciated your concern for living persons even more. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Come on, Mohanbhan, you know I'm a Wikipedia admin and my concern is for things posted about living people on Wikipedia, right? Do you really expect me to go... somewhere... no idea where, and rescue Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis from the individual in question? Bishonen | talk16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
And I wrote what I wrote on wikipedia because what this person has been saying about Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis is being systematically censored on wikipedia. It is very easy to WP:CRYBLP but certain facts are facts. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Are they really? Your analysis of the person's psychological makeup is a "fact"? You should stop before you talk yourself into worse trouble. Bishonen | talk17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
Mohanbhan, I just noticed you blanked a comment of mine with this edit, accidentally, I'm sure. Here it is again: "But I'm pleased you noticed my edit summary, so that I know you've seen my warning. I wouldn't want to block you without warning you first." Bishonen | talk17:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
It is not my analysis but a fact that is supported by WP:RS like (i) this Newsminute article, (ii) this article on The New Yorker and though not WP:RS this (iii) blog post. I don't think I blanked your comment but if I did yes it must have been by accident. And yes, I know you want to block me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: Please reflect on @Bishonen's concerns on your edit here and fresh aspersions above. You allege "facts are facts" and provide three sources claiming "it is not analysis but fact supported by WP:RS". I read the first two, ignored the third as it is a non-RS blog (and you acknowledge that too). The Newsminute petition is not RS either. It is a POV off a petition. That leaves the New Yorker, which indeed is WP:RS.
The New Yorker article does not conclude or imply anywhere that "this person [Malhotra] makes the most shameful remarks on Christians, Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis" or anything about his psychological state and his racial views. Adivasis and Dalits are never mentioned in the New Yorker article. The word Christian is used once in the article, but not at all in Malhotra context.
New Yorker does discuss Indian Muslims, but only in the context of them blocking freedom of expression in their country by lobbying a ban on Salman Rushdie's book 25 years ago and the threats of violence by Muslim leaders if Rushdie showed up in their country in 2012. The New Yorker does not mention Malhotra ever was a Muslim leader. I am puzzled by your inference about Malhotra because of the threat of violence by Indian Muslim leaders against Rushdie or because of anything else in the New Yorker article.
The New Yorker article calls Malhotra's arguments as risible, nothing more, and most importantly never casts aspersions on Malhotra personally. Calling your analysis and BLP statements on Wikipedia pages as a fact supported by the New Yorker article is unjustified and unjustifiable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have provided the sources and I will ignore your selective reading of these sources. You are selectively reading only one source and drawing some strange inferences and attributing them to me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch, but you see how rational argument is useless here. Please don't bother; I certainly won't, after Mohanbhan's stupid and offensive aspersion on myself above: "I know you want to block me". I hope he doesn't post here again. Mohanbhan, I hope you won't, unless you wish to specifically ask for clarification of some of my admin actions. I'm always up for that. Bishonen | talk08:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC).
My edits
Phrases like "the African nation of Somalia" are not just uncommon (less than 200 instances a continent), but also rather condescending (imagine a sentence about "the North American nation of Canada").
I hope I've convinced you.
Hi, Hessamnia, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I'm not saying all of your removals were bad, far from it, but to go by the timestamps, and the results, you were performing them in a machine-like way without giving yourself time to consider the individual cases. Compare for instance my comment about S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897. Sweden isn't Canada. Bishonen | talk17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
1. Four tildes: Thanks for the reminder.
2. Individual cases: I've left fictional countries untouched, but point well taken.
What the heck is this Gumman Strömberg? I have been doing "Random Article," and I swear that the code is taunting me, trying to make me re-learn how to list things for AfD, because all I ever hit are vanity articles, but then sometimes I'll run into something like that. It's weird. Someone was copying something from somewhere. I've got no idea who the "good old woman of Stockholm" was. (Also ran into articles about university professors that were just their CV's, "great" business people who just held jobs, and a book co-op that sells books. If I were myself again, there'd be blood in the water.)
From all that's above, it seems like you lead an interesting life already, but perhaps one of your stalkers knows what's going on. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL, don't you know Random article is very dangerous? You see how the only reference for Gumman Strömberg is from 1895? The Swedish wikipedia version of the article is a little fuller, and has an actual link to the 1895 reference, which is an issue of the periodical Idun. No idea why that didn't survive the translation into English. I'll go put it in. You should enjoy reading about Gumman (=old woman, or "goodwife") Strömberg there: it's not only in olden Swedish, palely printed, but in old-spelling Swedish. Have fun. Actually, the sad thing is the lady — I think "fishwife" would be the term — is somewhat known, and I might even possibly be able to find references to her on the internet, except that both Johanna and Strömberg are extremely common names, so Google finds a stream of actresses, athletes, etc, etc.
As for AfD, it's impossible to do by hand, the code is in the business of taunting us. This is the best advice I'll ever give you wrt AfD: get Twinkle. You go into your Preferences —> Gadgets —> Browsing, and tick Twinkle. It'll give you an extra set of links at the top of the page, and when you're at the page you want to AfD, click the little link "xfd", and you'll be able to AfD the page as smooth as silk. (Cough. Once you're used to it. The first thing I did with it was nominate WP:ANI for deletion. I was widely congratulated on my tart wit.) Bishonen | talk19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. I will learn to Twinkle. I used to flash, but the police made me stop. "Flash memory" is a big topic of discussion among techies, so apparently a lot of computer programmers were flashers, too. So, the prose of the article is what happens when 19th century Swedish vellum is translated into English without so much as a thought as to idiom or "encyclopedic format." Hithladaeus (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If you're looking for resumes, just look at this version of one. The article was undeleted due to receiving an award; though the award is given by a non-notable group, carries a deliberately incorrect name of Indira Gandhi (variations of which give great press coverage!). The fun though is in the references, I dare you to go through all 111 of them! —SpacemanSpiff19:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh my goodness! "All your organs must cry?" This is McKuen-level poetry. In fact, I plan to quote "All your organs must cry" as often as possible. It's worthy of McGonagall! Hithladaeus (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I did go "vote" at AfD when I wasn't teaching for a bit (i.e. "What I did on my summer vacation," which says something about my summer), and I saw tons of those CV's. There are floods and floods of new articles like the one you mention coming in from India, and the language barrier -- plus the assumption that AfD voters have to do the research to prove that no potential article could be written, rather than that the actual article is awful, and it gets Sisyphian. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, more often than not, the wrong articles pass through owing to the "reverse systemic bias" feeling at AfDs. Since we're on the topic of herring, red or otherwise, who doesn't love to read about ocean studies or discussing who the big fish is. If you do open those links and read through, it's very likely that your brain will abandon your skull and go for a walk on its own. —SpacemanSpiff04:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
All my organs they cry! The writing, she is not in logic. This isn't a problem of Hindi/Bangla, etc., but of tautology. Someone has to understand the licensing procedures in India. There are state schools, but then there is probably a state accrediting agency to handle private institutions, and folks who know what they are would do well to tell the tremulous Anglophone readers 1) that they exist, 2) what they are, 3) how to find them. Until then, all that's going to happen will be that sad travesty of "deletionists are snobs, and inclusionists are defenders of free speech." Blug. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
In this case the person who wrote the article is an assistant professor (they have mentioned themselves in the article) and there's no reason to disbelieve them as they've also uploaded their wedding photographs and the like to Commons so that they could be used in these articles here! I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here (I'm also a product of the same school and college system, so I wouldn't put the blame there) but it's more likely IMO to do with the sudden access to almost anything through the internet as opposed to the past where an inter-library loan to access a book could take upto a few months (I remember have to join the waitlist for books at the British Council Library about two to three months in advance as that was the only place you could get some books, not even at bookstores, unlike now), so everyone wants to use this new access, and Wikipedia becomes the first stop. It leads to a rather unwanted problem though, one tends to try and clean up the abysmal while ignoring the mediocre but important. —SpacemanSpiff17:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Gumman Strömberg was nothing unusual, every town and city in Scandinavia had a few of them, women, usually the wives of fishermen, who ran thriving businesses selling fish and other seafood to both high and low (I mean we all need to eat). Where I currently live there's even a statue dedicated to the sillagummor, i.e. "herring women" ("gumma" isn't a generic word for "older woman", BTW, but carries the added meaning that it's someone who is nice and likeable, with the opposite, a mean old nag, being a "kärring"...). A "title" that couldn't be used in Stockholm since they don't have "sill", i.e. real herring at least a foot long, but only the Baltic dwarf variety of herring, "strömming". Thomas.W talk20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I was going to comment on how bad chitlins smell when they're cooking, but that's probably unwise from someone who likes surströmming :-) Mr Potto (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm handling it; I'll block if they edit further without responding on their page. I suppose an WP:UAA report can't hurt, though. I don't have that username template in my memory banks, and I'll be going to bed soon. Thanks for your vigilance, Oshwah. Bishonen | talk22:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bish could you or some other admin do something about this [352]? I don't know who that is or why they are linking my name but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Cadencool10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
because it's too numb. Sleepiness may well be a euphemism for senility, though I blame the heat. (Today's forecast is for 37° in the shade, plus of course oodles of humidity.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Thanks for the page protection. There are actually two IPs, though, but one of them (24.193.121.251(talk·contribs·WHOIS)) has so far only edited the talk page. That IP is obviously the same user as Bay Ridge, who judging by available evidence is the owner of bayridge.net (just look at their contributions...). Compare this edit summary by the IP with this edit summary by Bay Ridge, the IP also geolocates to Brooklyn, just like the web site. The other IP (2604:2000:7122:B700:18C9:2B21:3958:CE93(talk·contribs·WHOIS)) showed up last, and doesn't seem to geolocate to the New York area, but IPv6 geolocation is notoriously inaccurate. The site has masqueraded as an official web site for years, but is a site with a forum, classified ads and a "Yellow pages" directory that generates money for its owner (see this FAQ), which is why they're so desperately fighting to keep it in the article. Thomas.W talk17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I got tired of being accused of being a vandal so I have reported the site to the blacklist. Not sure if it will be added though, since they have only targeted one article so far. Thomas.W talk18:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've been banned at Bayridge.net, so don't go trying to log on there to chat with your Brooklyn friends and your Brooklyn dates with your Brooklyn hipsters. (I think that's what the IP's edit summaries were supposed to mean. He's going to ban you.) Wherever will you go for entertainment in New York City now, ThomasW? Hithladaeus (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Being banned in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, is no problem since I don't live there. I lived on the left coast for a few years though, but have long since returned to Europe. Thomas.W talk19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sanctions way too harsh
Disagree with your sanctions. Your sanctions are also way too harsh, seems very biased. First, did not notice you were an administrator posting a warning, so ok. Since it was at the end of others comments, it appeared as another such comment from certain editors attempting to just post flags on my page which seems to be a 'pattern' or tactic to achieve their editing goals. When articles are unduly negative they become un-encyclopedic. Removing sentences or making them more neutral is a common practice in Wikipedia, especially unduly negative ones in BLPs. When info exists in other articles on the subject, its not necessarily being removed. Entries may have expired links (like the Robert Gordon U entry), be anecdotal, not very notable, merely amount to name calling, be quotes taken out of context, and so on - goals to keep the article encyclopedic. Trump deserves a fair article, not one that name calls or has many of these sorts of anecdotal negatives. Sanctioning those who are attempting to help, appears to tilt the balance of editing against fairness, and also gives zero clout to editors who are attempting to keep the article encyclopedic and fair. I would request that you reconsider in my favor. I would definitely be more attentive to using the article talk page to resolve such matters with other editors. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Paine1776, I think you have demonstrated one of the downsides of your practice on your page, which is to regularly remove anything critical after a cursory glance at best. I see people complaining about the practice itself, and I consider it nonchalant and uncollaborative, beyond the fleeting disadvantage of missing an administrative warning. When I say a cursory glance… wrt my warning, you managed to miss the fact that it came immediately after a large, formal, square, alert template about discretionary sactions enabled for BLPs also posted by me; that I was someone who had never edited your talkpage before [added 10:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC): sorry, that's not strictly true; I see I warned you two years ago, also in an admin capacity, about your actions at Talk:Detroit[353]]; that I had, and have, never edited any article relating to Donald Trump, so you can't have seen me there trying to 'achieve editing goals'; and that I said I'd consider topic banning you from Donald Trump-related content if you didn't stop. If you took me for a regular visitor to your page (= "certain editors" that you choose to ignore), and/or for a Trump-warrior after all that, it really says something about how little attention you pay to posts on your page. What do you even mean by "it was at the end of others' comments"? It was not. It was in a separate section entitled "Warning", and walled off from other comments by a big shouty yellow template.
Anyway. You consider my sanction harsh, and I will acknowledge that one year is a long time. But it's a narrow sanction — it only apples to one public figure — you can edit everywhere else — and you have persistently been editing disruptively wrt that person. Whitewashing BLPs is as unacceptable as making them unduly negative. I'm afraid I won't reconsider, but if you edit appropriately in other areas for six months, and especially if you improve your practice with regard to both article talkpages and your own page, I will be happy to lift the sanction at the end of that period. Or you can appeal the ban in another venue immediately, and let others judge. You can take it to WP:AN for assessment by the community, WP:AE for assessment by uninvolved admins, or WP:ARCA for assessment by the arbitration committee. Bishonen | talk07:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bish. I'm well aware of DENY. I'm also aware that the best way to dispell darkness is to shine a light on it. While the racist troll probably would struggle to understand a rational discussion, not everyone seeing the vandalism is a racist troll. Including me. Revert me if you like, but I'd love to have the allegation spelled out (I genuinely don't understand it) so that whatever claptrap lies behind it can be exposed. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I know your intentions are of the purest, User:Dweller, but that's a naive argument in my opinion. Sorry. "Light" is what trolls want, it's food for them. Also, I don't think we should encourage the person behind the troll accounts to evade their block to respond to you at the reference desk. Bishonen | talk12:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
You finally got to apply the mass rollback script in all its glory. 400 tabs you say? Have a cupcake. NQ-Alt (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I needed that! Thank you, Alt! You know what was unexpected for me? That the script only rolled back what it could see. I mean, I had the last fifty edits by the vandal in the contribs window and clicked rollback all, and it reverted the fifty. Then I realized what was happening and selected the last 500... and when it tried to roll back all them, that was when it opened 400 tabs and began to hiss and emit steam. Poor browser. (Unless it was chugging along all the time, as soon as I'd clicked rollback all the first time. Not sure.) Bishonen | talk22:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC).
Sjung med psalmisten Kolmodin
Kom nu till Hångers källa.
Elisabet Hermodsson, b. 1927
Hamster-powered barnstar created for this user by User:Penyulap 24 June 2013
Stopped being lazy...
...and redid the mass rollback script the right way; it should no longer open up new tabs or completely thrash your computer. Writ Keeper⚇♔04:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My poor, exhausted, ancient MacBook thanks you in a trembling voice. As for me, Writty, I wonder if you can perhaps also do something about the way it mucks up my contribs list? I mean, suddenly there are 400 contributions (all made simultaneously), making themselves broad and pushing actual contributions, if any, to the corner. Mind you, whether or not, I'm very glad to have the script. Bishonen | talk22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
That I'm afraid I can't do; there will always be an entry for each rollback, since each will be to a different page. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, it buffs up my thanks log; I was surprised to get thanked for several of these, after all, mundane rollbacks. Not for a great percentage, but still. :-) Bishonen | talk23:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
Soham and close paraphrasing
I've just taken a look at one of Soham's edits since the topic ban. We already knew that they had problems with close paraphrasing. I looked at this, which for example includes:
When the Russian Empress Catherine the Great heard that Diderot was in need of money she arranged for the purchase of Diderot's library and for the appointment of Diderot as the caretaker of this library--at an annual retainer of one thousand livres. Moreover, she paid him twenty five years of his salary in advance. Overnight, Diderot became wealthy. He could not thus refuse her invitation to visit her.
The source says
When Catherine heard that he was planning to sell his library in order to raise a dowry for his daughter, she instructed her Paris agent to buy it at whatever price Diderot should ask; he asked and received sixteen thousand livres. Then she requested Diderot to keep the books till his death, and to be their custodian for her at a salary of a thousand livres per year; moreover, she paid his salary twenty-five years in advance. Diderot overnight became a rich man and a defender of Catherine. When she invited him to visit her he could hardly refuse.
This isn't as close as some stuff I vaguely recall having seen in recent weeks but it is concerning. Pinging Moonriddengirl because I'm not sure whether this might be a WP:CCI situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are definitely copyright problems. This edit includes blatant copy-pasting (as, evidently, did this). This one is uncomfortably close:
Source text
Article text
According to a source close to Honey Singh, when the rapper received a call from Bhardwaj, he thought it was a prank, more so when he was told it was for song written by Gulzar.... After verifying the truth of the offer, Honey Singh is said to have set aside all his other commitments and rushed to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj.
At first when Honey Singh was contacted by Vishal Bhardwaj over telephone he considered it to be a prank call.[1] His belief consolidate when he was asked to rap on verses written by Gulzar.[1] After verifying the entire incident he set aside all his prior commitments and travelled to Mumbai to meet Bhardwaj at the earliest
I'm not sure if a full-blown CCI is called for, though. I generally look for 5 examples of outstanding copyright issues to make sure it's worth asking for community resources. It can take hours for me to review fully - especially where close paraphrasing is the issue instead of copy-pasting. (Copy-pasting - so much easier!) I jumped heavily through his history and didn't find a lot of problematic content that seems to cross the line into copyright issues. What I did find seems to be gone. Mind you, this is a judgment call and I'm not 100% sure I'm suggesting the right one. Without actually DOING the CCI, I can't be sure I'm not missing something major. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Those are quite old examples. My major concern (aside from any remaining outright copyvios) is that lessons may not have been learned. They've been told as recently as this month that they need to get a grip on the idea of paraphrasing but there still seem to be some near-to-the-bone things going on. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, i would like to clarify that none of the diffs you have given were to any edits of mine. This is because you are giving the edits of an editor named Soham; i am not Soham, i am Soham321. I would also have appreciated it if Sitush would have have had the courtesy to have pinged me when discussing something as serious as possible copyright violations in my edits. Soham321 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That is my fault: I called you Soham (a shorthand that Bish would recognise) and MRG picked up on that. I'd already spoken to you about these issues before and you seemed rather unconcerned. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see one lingering WP:NFC issue. The original of this massive quote is public domain, but there's no information on the copyright of the translation, which is what is used in our article. The book which is cited is almost certainly within copyright, with a first edition dating back to the 1970s. There certainly have been issues with extensive quotations. This rewrite of an extensive quotation was still an extensive quotation, taking more content than is necessary or appropriate under WP:NFC (content like "There was some discussion after this" is by no means required for our article and could be easily omitted), but it's no longer present. But I've done a pretty thorough spot-check and, while unable to view many of the books cited, didn't really find significant paraphrasing issues in the passages I view. Just as with the other fellow, I can't be sure I haven't missed something, but if I encountered a copyright issue at WP:CP and had a spot-check that looked like this, I would pursue no further beyond perhaps leaving a note explaining why paraphrase is important rather than stringing together quotations.
Not knowing what conversations have been had here before, Soham321, I'll just note that the bulk of our articles must be written in our own words and structures. Quotations can and should be used, but must be used "transformatively" - that is, to oversimplify, we can't use a quotation because we want to communicate the same information as our source, but must have a better reason, such as attributing a specific point of view. Where material from your source does not need to be in your source's language, it shouldn't be. And even if we want to use material transformatively - say, to attribute a point of view - we are limited in how much we can take. Wikipedia generally prefers to keep excerpts of copyrighted sources down to a few sentences.
Even if content is written entirely in your own words, it can be a copyright issue if you are simply appropriating the creativity of your source. So an article that summarized and briefly excerpted a single source or largely from a single source might still be a copyright issue. We have to be careful to avoid inadvertently creating derivative works, including unauthorized condensations of our sources (or "key" material from them). The best way to do this is to draw widely from multiple sources and, again, to ensure that the bulk of our articles are written in original language and structure.
Oh, as an aside, I see you often use (or at least have used) {{quote}}. This is for use with lengthier quotations. The bulk of quotes should be inline with your sentence. See WP:MOSQUOTE for more. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't usually ask for favours, but you have particular expertise that could help me.
I've been involved in a nasty dispute at Talk:Zourafa where Gts-tg, the author of the corresponding article on Greek Wikipedia, has been edit-warring to keep a tag there claiming that the English article, written by Alakzi, contained content copied from his article. This has escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard #Talk:Zourafa and User talk:Gts-tg #Talk:Zourafa, where Gts-tg won't discuss his behaviour. I've been subject to several personal attacks from Gts-tg, who is unwilling to accept that Alakzi could have independently created the article here.
If you had a little time, would you do me the favour of reviewing the talk page and those sections, and telling me if it would be reasonable for me to seek a topic ban from Talk:Zourafa for Gts-tg? And if so, what the best venue would be? (AN? ANI?) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Expertise? I hope you're not suggesting I've become the go-to admin for topic bans? Dreadful fate. Either AN or ANI would work. Theoretically, community topic ban proposals are supposed to go on AN, because they're not about one incident, and because AN isn't archived as quickly. But the preference for AN is becoming more and more a dead letter. In practice proposals for topic bans are often put on ANI, perhaps because it gets more traffic, or perhaps sometimes because it's the only admin noticeboard the OP knows about.
However. The user seems to have resigned themselves to consensus[354] and is apparently on board with the DR being closed. In such a situation, you're never going to get a topic ban just because they're rude. It's rather strange the way they've been attacking you, I agree, but I think the best thing you can do is walk away. I've put a note on their page to urge them to disengage too. Bishonen | talk14:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
Tunisian Arabic
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic is nominated for GA Status. Please review this work and adjust it if he involves several deficiencies.
Alerted an oversighter, hmm... I guess the user meant to say something else. I don't suppose she thinks Monty Python references are "defamatory". Checkuser, probably. Alison is both. She's not around that much, though. Hasn't edited since July 27. I've written a comment beneath Atsme's on Alison's page, to point out that and related matters. Bishonen | talk20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for the alert, Andy, but I don't think so. I'd rather let Atsme's heated accusations speak for themselves, and let the reader decide who they reflect badly on, if anybody. As your own words in the header imply, replying would in a way imply it has "merit". The ANI thread is bloated already, and especially has a lot of back-and-forth already. By my count, Atsme alone has posted 18 times in it. (Caution: I may have missed something, or au contraire counted something that was just adding a sig.) Sadly, I don't think the discussion has much chance of attracting uninvolved users at this point, because reading it is like climbing barbed wire. Please note, Atsme, that my pinging you here isn't aimed at bringing you to my page; it's just for courtesy, to let you know you have been spoken of. Bishonen | talk08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Well if it isn't going to attract uninvolved users, it should probably - regrettably - be closed down. I'm sure that Atsme's behaviour will come up again soon enough, and at some point the community is going to have to act. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it might as well be closed down, I can't see it going anywhere, unfortunately. You or I shouldn't do it, but you might post a request for someone uninvolved to do it, if you like. With a subheader so it shows up, or they'll never see it. Or I will when I get home, I'm on the run. IMO it might be a good idea to open a dedicated thread proposing sanctions for Atsme, perhaps on AN. Bishonen | talk08:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Thank you for the ping. I think it's only fair that if you're going to count my posts, you should've also counted the 27 posts by AndyTheGrump. But above all, you need to know the kind of editor you're defending and the position you've taken. He posted the following last night - [358] and ended his misinformation rant with, "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better.” I can't remember in my short history as an editor on WP that I've ever come across anyone so mean and hateful and hope I never do again. I'm concerned that if I don't get resolution for the behavior of the named editors at ANI, particularly AndyTheGrump, I will be forced to take it higher. Atsme📞📧13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You must have forgotten crossing my path, as I'm at least as mean and hateful as ATG. It's interesting that you would feel "forced to take it higher" - have you had a read of WP:BATTLE lately? --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"Higher" presumably means ArbCom, as opposed to for instance my page. Go ahead and take it there, if you think it'll benefit you. (I don't.) Re your "short history as an editor on WP", not sure what kind of scale you're using. You've been editing Wikipedia for three and a half years. You're an experienced editor now. Bishonen | talk15:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
RexxS - sorry but I don't remember crossing your path. I do remember crossing paths with editors where kindnesses are shown and your user name doesn't ring a bell. I don't like to waste valuable time that could be spent editing to look up diffs to defend myself or provide evidence against PAs. I also don't hold grudges like what I've seen others do on WP. I admit when I'm wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake twice. No one is perfect. I do know that some members of project teams don't always act responsibly and have been getting away with things they shouldn't be getting away because of their sheer numbers. In most cases, admins are too busy to investigate the root of the problem - many see only the surface and trust in the comments of their buddies to guide them which often results in treating only the symptoms and leads to an unfair result.
As for my experience - my editing in 2011 was very limited - 20 edits or so if that many - and I made typical newbie mistakes. My edits caused no harm to anyone, and my work since my retirement has helped enhance the encyclopedia with rare u/w footage, photographs, and information about endangered species which is actually what we're supposed to be doing here, not attacking each other in these childish troll-like games. I didn't start editing and creating articles until 2014, but as a seasoned professional now retired, I think my experience is of the level that I know when I'm being railroaded, can tell when page stalkers are not demonstrating GF, what tag-teams look like, and when admins are protecting their buddies and each other. Fortunately the latter doesn't happen often. I've also seen a couple of ARBCOM cases where GF editors were railroaded but fortunately, that doesn't happen too often. It's all about apprehension and the time it takes to fully understand a controversial issue. Most editors actually do depend on administrators to be neutral but we also know there are a few admins who simply refuse to leave their biases at log-in. Atsme📞📧13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that broad hint, Atsme. Have you noticed that I in my turn have given you two broad hints above that I'd rather you not post here? Please don't unless you have a factual question or comment about some of my admin actions — I'm always up for that. Bishonen | talk14:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
No I didn't notice the hints, I made the mistake of AGF, and don't know what hints you think I made but will continue to AGF. I will also honor your request and ask in return that you stop stalking my posts on TPs. Atsme📞📧15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Soham
Hi Bishonen, I hope you don't mind me putting in a word here. Soham321's talk page is on my watch list and I have been noticing the to-and-fro there. I think he has a difficult enough time dealing with his topic ban. Can you cut him a little slack? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
He should know better than to put back a post containing anonymous advice for people who want to evade their blocks or bans, and he should know much better than to put back the anonymous troll's second post, which I had explicitly removed as block evasion. Sorry, Kautilya3, I appreciate and respect your input, and I understand the topic ban was a blow to Soham, but he doesn't get any more slack for such nonsensical actions. Bishonen | talk16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
They're now getting involved in stuff at ANI, if my watchlist is anything to go by. Given their numerous misunderstandings of policy, they probably should keep well away from that hellhole. Perhaps they will listen to you, Kautilya3 ? I fear it will only end badly otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes you did. And before you use terms like "tool" and "shifty" in a biography again, have a read of WP:BLP, particularly the part that says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. If you don't understand what "poorly sourced" means in this context, then it's time you looked at how we identify reliable sources on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Impartial Scholar: Also, please note that the "factual" parts of your post have not been deleted. The information about the meetings has been retained, and the sources you listed are still there, properly formatted. The only thing that has been deleted, by several different editors, is the accusations made on Fox News. If you want to argue that those comments should be retained, the place to do it is at Talk:Jon Stewart. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
[A little embarassed.] Wrangle? Wrangle? Oh, is it slow to load? Sorry. I don't like to archive… I love my talkpage posters… but OK, I'll archive. Conservatively. Just for you, Ogress. Bishonen | talk14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
@Mohanbhan's edit with @Soham321 sourced material?
Oh... yes, I think so. On principle. Whether the sources are good, and whether the article is good, is something I'm not going to look into at this time, because Indian philosophy is one of my many areas of ignorance, except in the most sketchy sense. I'm simply not the right person to do it, and so I simply answer your question as a matter of principle. I assume you ask it because Soham321 is topic banned from India-related pages? But Mohanbhan isn't, so far. Bans aren't inherited. Do you know if Mohanbhan has taken the material from Wikipedia? If not, one can assume that Soham has provided it to him privately. If you have reason to suspect that that happened during the topic ban, then Soham has violated his ban (again), and Monabhan has enabled that violation. That would be bad. Perhaps the best thing would be for you to ask them both about the circumstances? Incidentally, a while back, I wanted to ask you something privately (not connected with this), and was disappointed to find you don't have Wikipedia e-mail enabled. Is there a special reason? I mean, do you prefer not to have it, or have you just not got round to it? If it's your preference, you certainly don't owe me any explanation for that preference; I find wikimail useful myself, that's all. Bishonen | talk20:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
(Talk page watcher comment) The article lede seems to have been taken from the Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya article - without attribution. Both Mohanbhan and Soham123 had been working on this prior to Soham123s topic ban, so I don't think there is any problem beyond a failure to note the copying, which is a mistake often made by people not familiar with what is a fairly obscure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Andy. In that case, I suppose the edit summary "Created with material sourced by Soham321" may have been a good-faith attempt to provide that attribution. Would you like to tell them how to do it, Andy? Or perhaps a tps would care to. I can't face looking it up, I'm running a temperature. :-( Bishonen | talk21:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen:, @AndyTheGrump: Thank you, both. @Bish: never got around to setting up the wiki email. Tempting suggestion. I wonder if it triggers clutter/junk anon emails through wikipedia? Hope you get well soon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't found it does; I get hardly any spam to the account I set up specially for wikimail. (Most people do set up a dedicated account, and I'd recommend it.) If trolls use the wikimail to write to you — something rare, in my experience — remember they don't know your e-mail addy. Don't reply if you don't want them to learn it. If you keep that in mind, you'll be fine. Also note that anons don't have the mail feature, they can't write to you at all. Bishonen | talk07:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
But Sarah, your email id and name will be visible to others to whom you mail, whatever you are in your real life male/female, you don't use your real name in email. Don't use your original email, you create new email with your current username. Emails can be helpful in life of a Wikipedian, I think you should have email, you are good contributor to Wikipedia. Cheers. --Human3015Send WikiLove07:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Bish, about your remarks here, please re-review the block log here. Alexbrn you might want to consider changing your ANI posting in light of Bish's action, that I just linked to. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Annoyingly, somebody had commented just before I got there - so I've struck my proposed ban and mentioned the re-opened section. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Alex, but yes, after I'd posted to Atsme about the fourteen prods, I took a look at the original thread, un-hatted Georgewilliamherbert's hat + trout, and blocked Atsme for a month. There's a lot of consensus for some kind of boomerang. Don't you think so, George? It's not fair to constructive contributor to let this kind of time-wasting go on and on. If you had at least used Darwinbish's fishslapping template, OK, but a floppy trout? Bishonen | talk13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
What were you saying about my remarks, Jytdog — that there are in fact previous long blocks? Not really IMO — nothing that I regard. That soon-rescinded indef block from 2011 for posting personal information was just a bit of nonsense. Bishonen | talk13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
No, just that Callen blocked her not that long ago under an arbcom-mandated DS, which she contested at arbcom and then at AN when she sought to reverse the decision not to act on her protest. The block history is not clean. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
He didn't block her, as far as I can see (we don't need to invoke DS for blocks), he page banned her for a week. I didn't know about that — I don't follow Atsme, although she seems to think I do — I go out in the sun, that's what I do — but I don't think it impacts my block in any case. The only "real" previous block is 36 hours for edit warring in 2014. That matters, but there are still no previous long blocks, and so one month seems right to me. Bishonen | talk13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
Howdy, I'm reviewing a request from Handpolk (talk·contribs) at UTRS. A checkuser was completed which showed their account was Unrelated to the one you blocked them for. I'm planning on reducing their block to "time served", since the initial block was for 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Nakon17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Favonian. You surprise me, Nakon, but if the CU is sure, of course I don't have any concerns. Could you edit the DegenFarang SPI to mention the CU information and the unblock, please? (If you do unblock, in view of Favonian's note.) Bishonen | talk17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC).
I've taken another look at the links Favonian provided and am convinced that there's enough behavioral evidence to uphold the block. Thanks for the additional information. Nakon17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Just posting here to let you know that being an admin carries with it the burden of playing ring master for all sorts of acts....that and I wanted to see Laurel and Hardy dance...--MONGO04:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh god so much to read… article talk… AfD… OK, I'm reading, I'm reading. I may actually close the ANI as "Oh god so much to read". Bishonen | talk12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
Of course we should. Checking… oh, Lancashire? I sort of assumed he was from London, like Chaplin. Laurel's childhood seems to have been a bit smoother. Bishonen | talk12:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
(edit conflict) I spent a couple of summers in the Lake District when I was young, but never passed through Ulverston, so I can't claim any connection to Stan Laurel. I've seen Greta Garbo in New York, though, or at least a woman who looked like her. Thomas.W talk12:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've just done some fact checking - I wish to correct my statement above. I live just up the road from Bishop Auckland where Stan lived with his grandmother for a lot of his childhood. The town is very proud of him, and I remember watching his movies right back to my childhood, mumble years ago. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
You should be proud. Brilliant man in so many ways. I too have fond memories of childhood matinés with Laurel and Hardly, with a wildly enthusiastic very young audience. There was a scene where Hardy hangs from the top of a tall building, and Laurel hangs from his neck, I think, then slides down to clutch his waist, then Hardy's belt gives way and his trousers slide down, so Laurel hangs clutching his ankles, and then of course the trousers slide down further and Laurel hang from the trousers, which hang from Hardy's feet. We screamed and screamed! Not nearly as much fun watching it on TV — the timing of these things was designed (largely by Stan Laurel in the cutting room, as far as I understand it) to be accompanied by the screams of children. We weren't afraid — even the three-year-olds knew nobody would get hurt — we were screaming with delight. Bishonen | talk13:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
That jig Laurel and Hardy does just reminds me of the same motion most humans do when I jump out of of the woods to scare the bahjesus out of them! Shhh...don't tell bishzilla!--MONGO17:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Meh. I just watched two 7 year olds have the same reaction to an old Pee-Wee Herman movie (and this movie was before his career defining trouser scene in the Lancashire of Florida). He had his own dance too. --DHeyward (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Funny, the article doesn't say when Singh was born (though the category does, 1986, and it used to be in the infobox too). Surely BLP's are supposed to have the year of birth? I'm considering adding "born 1986 just like Vermapriya1986 and User:Route1986" to the lead.
Thanks. I was eyeing removal of the birth year category on the grounds of BLP / V. There is a category for BLPs with missing year of birth.
But note that the category was added by Yobot.[359] The date and year of birth was then in the infobox, and I presume the bot saw it. Not sure when it was removed from the box — I can't see any way of using the otherwise very helpful WikiBlame tool to see when stuff was removed. (And I see the IP that removed my banner can be assumed to have been born in 1986, too. Sitush, when you revert that guy's edits, do you have to call them "good-faith"? It doesn't matter, I know, but it just rubs me the wrong way.) Bishonen | talk17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
Ha. It might draw more attention from the civility police that way, and get removed… but yes, a pic would be cool. You want to add one, Ealdgyth? Like this, or maybe this? I couldn't find a sock drawer, on a quick look. Bishonen | talk18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
The Twinkle good faith thing is because I have been chastised far too often for ABF'ing, so it has become a more or less consistent approach to avoid being targeted by those who usually have little better to do here than chase the dream of a friendly space. It is rather hypocritical on my part and I don't think I've ever called one of these wrongly yet. I'll try not to do it in future but it usually takes a couple of reverts before I am satisfied that I'm dealing with Someone Who Should Not Be Here.
I'd be surprised if it was not me who removed the y.o.b. from the infobox. Life would be easier if that article could be deleted but, alas, even somewhat bizarre reality TV shows seem to create notability for their contestants. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ghatus' repeated use of article talk page as forum
Hi @Bish: @Ghatus has been repeatedly posting forum-y generic discussion on Hinduism talk page, with this being the latest incident. The post reads, "BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the sultan and their top generals. Truly speaking, Muslim rule started in the North India by Muslim slaves themselves...."
Recent past incidents by @Ghatus include: 1 (FYI, the closest version of the article at the time of this forum-y post is this and it has no mention at all of "sword" or "dint of sword". To my recollection this was not in any version of the article for numerous months before that time stamp.)
Recent past incidents by @Ghatus also include: 2, 3, 4, 5, with the last one not only forum-y but a massive copvio on talk page which @Sitush fixed here.
@Ghatus was politely reminded of WP:TALKNO in this post three days ago.
Statement by Ghatus An administrator told me on my Talk Page to assume good faith and talk politely about 36 hours ago. I am doing so. Since then all my words are polite. Sarah can not debate with me and running here and there lodging complaints against me and my language. A lost case. Thank you Ghatus (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ghatus: The Hinduism article has multiple seasoned editors involved already. Your forum-y lectures, with or without copyvio, is repeated disruption. You have been politely given the link, WP:TALKNO, on August 6, which says:
Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia: (...) Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."
But you don't respect what wikipedia policy is, and continue your disruptions. The forum-y posts including the massive copyvio was after the WP:TALKNO notice to you here. When I write 'speak of intent' above, I am referring to three types of disruption: disruption in ignorance, disruption with knowledge and intent, disruption with knowledge and intent after reminder. Your disruptions, @Ghatus, fall in the "disruption with knowledge and intent after reminder" category. Instead of introspecting, you are taking the battleground approach in favor of forum-y debate on article talk pages, on @Bish's talk page. Clearly, you don't want to respect WP:TALKNO policy of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus, please note that an article talkpage is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Of all the instructions at the top of Talk:Hinduism, that's the only one that's all in bold, because it's very important. That said, Ms Sarah Welch, I note that most of your diffs above predate my warning to Ghatus on his page. It seems to me that his practice has changed in the past few days. The uw-chat warning templates that you mention can be served by anybody, but please be aware that they should be used sparingly (like other warning templates). Posts don't become more "official" or in any way better because they're "templates". On the contrary, a handcrafted individualized message in humanspeak is always better. It's hardly polite to speak in templates; they're best kept for vandals, not for good-faith users such as Ghatus. The copyvio that you mention, that Sitush removed, was several days ago. Ghatus, I note that Sitush reminded you politely on your page about copyright violation being a serious matter all over Wikipedia — not only in articles. You didn't respond to him, but I assume you took it to heart. Bishonen | talk15:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Thanks. @Ghatus: As a constructive reminder, it is stuff like "BTW, are you interested to know about the History of Muslims slaves in India and worldwide? Should I name the sultan and their top generals...." that makes your posts a WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX. What has "history of Muslims slaves worldwide" have to do with Hinduism article, or how to improve that article? Then you add stuff such as "Again,If you read little bit more History, you will know that ...." as you did here against me today. Your non-AGF presumptions about other editors is not only insulting, it feeds your soapy posts? Contrast your comments with @Joshua Jonathan's comments, the latter's comments include one or more reliable source(s), or request for information, focused suggestions and a constructive discussion on the article or specific ways to improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, delicious! I hope you do — I'd love to see a Dutch Optimist's guide. What do you say, Drmies, wouldn't that be cool? P.S, Kleuske, are you aware of MastCell's celebrated Cynic's guide? I wrote mine as a kind of minor companion piece to it, a Robin to MastCell's Batman, if you will. Bishonen | talk15:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC).
Well, it's not clear which edit *of mine* you think either infringes WP:Copyvio or any other potential sanction - all I did was reinstate material that had been removed by one disruptive editor. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've replied to this on your page, before I noticed you said it here too. Note also that you reinstated the copyvio with an edit summary showing you knew it was an exact quote.Bishonen | talk03:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
So why aren't you taking action (if it really means so much, which it doesn't) against the editor who posted it in the first place? Ghughesarch (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Joshua. Cool quote isn't it? The sentiment has been voiced before, but "riff-raff" makes it colourful and lively. :-) What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed, kind of thing. Bishonen | talk14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
Quick vent
I am so tired of spending half my edits babysitting noobs. I know it is my responsibility to be a good editor but I honestly just am so tired of holding people's hands. An unstoppable onslaught of edit-warring, totally silent editors Righting Great Wrongs is just so exhausting. I just want to edit some articles sometimes, you know? Ogresssmash!10:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't blame you. Did you notice the user created an article about Aung San's son who died at the age of eight? Oh.. yes, I see you did, you edited it just before it was speedied. I predict they'll sit out my 31-hour block silently and then return to Aung San. I'll try to keep an eye out. They edit from a mobile device, and I'll lay good money they're not aware of their talkpage, article talk, edit summaries, or histories. And limited English. :-( [/Me studies the portrait of Aung San with interest. His daughter looks a lot like him! ] Bishonen | talk11:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
You say that almost like you don't think I'm a Tier 1 Content Creator(TM). When I'm not permabanning innocent newbies, I'm all about MOS and referencing and templates and stuff. (Also, I knew Iridescent likes to use footnotes, so I looked at one of his articles and stole the coding) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it sounded a bit like one of ScienceApologist's newer usernames, only shorter, that's all. Or as if a darwinfish had plodded across your keyboard. But I hasten to add I've got it now. lr = lower roman, yes yes. Bishonen | talk20:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
Hi
Could you please take a look at the edits made by user Lane99 on the article Murder of Anni Dewani. I understand that the user is for some reason annoyed by the coverage of the murder in a television show but it is sourced and correct. First trying to revert it and then when warned adding a biased text about the show being "busted", for me it seems that the user behind the screen knows someone in this case personally or has a POV opinion strongly towards the suspect being innocent. But in my opinion we do not delete sourced information just because we do not like it, or add a personal view on an article. I might be wrong but in my opinion the new edits added by the user should be removed as it is opinionated instead of non-biased. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Too late at night now for me to tell what is and isn't biased, BabbaQ; I'm cross-eyed. I'll take a look tomorrow. Thanks for letting me know. Bishonen | talk22:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
OK, yes, they seem to have an agenda, but haven't reverted again after being warned by MusicAnimal. You've reverted all their removals, right? So the current problem is the "busted" addition, sourced to WordPress.com and the Telegraph. As far as I can see, WordPress.Com is simply a site where anybody can upload a blog or opinion piece! Ridiculous as a "reliable source". But possible the Telegraph is enough of a source, I'm not sure. I don't want to edit the article, as in for instance remove a source, because I may need to "admin" it later. I've added a YouTube link to where the Panorama can be viewed, though; that's just sensible. Bishonen | talk10:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
Still there..! (I've removed the extra egg.) Are the clerks all asleep? As for adding it to the template... hmmm... you daren't and I daren't... it's a job for Darwinbish! Bishonen | talk22:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
First draft is ready: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massProtect.js. For now, it's not very flexible: it'll only load on PrefixIndex pages, and only semiprotect things indefinitely with a canned protect summary. I have ideas for improvements, but this may do for now. As always, please be careful with it. Writ Keeper⚇♔17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Ygm. You mean you hope it'll enable you to mass delete the wiki, and then you'll be able to "negotiate" some personal advantages? Not quite, I'm afraid. But you can make a nice mess with it, yes! "Please be careful with it", haha. Darwinbish is more determined than ever to become an admin, so she'll be able to wreak havoc with this script. Bishonen | talk21:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC).
Toxicity report
It seems [360] your position as Wikipedia's only official Toxic editor is secure. I'd rather hoped I might have replaced you, but, sadly, it's not to be. However, I'm enjoying my summer immensely; my golfing handicap has risen to 24, which means I am now able to win money (£1.80) so far, and the cricket club captain has promoted me from Third Man to scorer (I have very neat handwriting apparently). I've been to stay with Aunt Catherine (who sends "civil greetings" to one and all); she's moved on from Monte Carlo - there was a little unjustified unpleasantness concerning her shuffling of the pack, so she's now playing Black Jack at Juan le Pins and giving elocution lessons to American tourists to make ends meet. Looking forward to our (sort of) return in the winter. Take care my love and don't be too toxic to the regulars. Giano(talk)18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have a spare few minutes, could you take a look at this AfD, [361] and decide whether an early 'delete' close is appropriate? The subject is a 16-year-old, who has made it clear that he doesn't want the article (see discussion on my talk page [362]), and the claims to notability (as a musician) are clearly not going to be supported by anything resembling a reliable source. It seems to have been a misguided effort by his fans (or fan - see also the SPI [363]), and I see no reason why we should prolong this, since we are dealing with an article on a minor. It might be worth salting the article too. I thought about asking at ANI, but since closing it seems uncontroversial (I hope) it seemed better not to use the drama board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Bish, but I finally loaded the AFD closing script yesterday, and was dying to try it out (my first AFD where I didn't say "someone please close this for me"!). I saw this thread and couldn't help myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You feel unwanted, Spacy? I feel completely unneeded. All I have to do for any problems brought to my page to be taken care of in an ideal manner, is to ignore them for an hour or two. Thanks all. Bishonen | talk20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC).
As a heads up, I closed the thread you started at ANI because it duplicated an ongoing discussion in another section. See this section instead. To make it easier to demonstrate consensus if the range block is contested, the discussion should be kept together. ~ RobTalk20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Rangeblock for WOP
Ponyo had evaluated a /22 rangeblock earlier and figured it'd cause too much collateral damage, so the one IP at a time. Don't know if it's any different at the /23 level, but the range used is /22 I think. —SpacemanSpiff20:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There was indeed significant potential collateral on this AT&T mobile range. If you decide to keep the block it needs to be update to allow account creation.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, lifted then. I was going to block it myself but was surprised by the activity level when I ran a check. P.S. A WOP is a Weary Old Person. There's a picture of me beside the definition. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, I have a user who posted a barnstar in my talkpage. But usually when someone receives a barnstar, they usually get a reason why they received it, which wasn't the case in regards to this. I received a barnstar of diplomacy but I'm not sure why. And what are barnstars exactly for by the way? Thanks :-) (N0n3up (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC))
(talk page stalker) Normally I’d say “ask the user”, but in this case I don‘t think that will help: the editor seems to have had a brief and erratic career, and hasn’t edited since being refused a couple of advanced user rights at the end of April; moreover another seemingly random recipient (from the same day) already asked such a question without receiving a response. So I wouldn’t give it a second thought; people do all kinds of odd things here …
In general barnstars are just one of the ways editors thank each other for their work, in a form that’s suitable for displaying as a keepsake in their user space. On any user-talk page (other than your own) you should see a “WikiLove” menu-tab, labelled with a heart, which offers a convenient way to post such messages. Or you can just add an appropriate template manually; the page linked at the beginning of this paragraph includes the wikicode for each item.—Odysseus147902:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Odysseus, Thanks for the info. I was about to ask TYTA Mahesh until I saw the user wasn't active since April. Normally before asking a question to a random user such as Bishonen in this case, I peeked to see if they were active users unlike TYTA Mahesh whom is likely to not answer. (N0n3up (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC))
Oddysseus is exactly right. Also, N0n3up, I've sometimes seen new users, who perhaps feel unappreciated, handing out barnstars in a rather random way, thinking it's a way to make friends. It always makes me a little sad for them, and I get the notion they're probably quite young. Bishonen | talk08:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen :-) (N0n3up (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC))
Now that we're talking, how can I know if my user profile is malfunctioning? Because everytime someone reverts an edit of mines it doesn't appear in my notifications and have to look at my contributions to see whats changed.... (N0n3up (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC))
There's a notifications tab in your Preferences, N0n3up, where you can select which kinds of events give you a notification. Have you ticked the box for "Edit revert" there? Bishonen | talk21:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
When you block someone reported at AIV, Helperbot is the bot that notices the account that's been reported has been blocked, and removes the report. So you can't go back and explain or thank or comment on any nuances to your block, because the report and all the comments have been removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Do I have to talk to people? Can I just sit by myself at the window and morosely watch the last few days of summer go by? (Saw a tree with a branch of leaves beginning to turn pale yellow today. Sad. Not even labor day yet. Time to buy house in southern hemisphere. Can't imagine dealing with winter.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Feel free sit and mope. Bring little monster for conversation! Monster great conversationalist! [Bishzilla knows this isn't strictly true, but she remembers her romantic interlude with Floquenstein's monster through something of a rosy mist.] Also try moving north, not south! Bishzilla's arctic home still very summery! Leaves green! bishzillaROARR!!14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC).
[Struck belatedly by the little Floquenbeam's strange concept of pocket.] Window..? No windows. Outer world refreshingly absent! Feel free sit at catflap and morosely watch for example the little Bigfoot delousing himself! Also a handsome natural prospect! bishzillaROARR!!16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC).
Oh. maybe I could rip a tiny little hole in... um... whatever material it is that Zilla is wearing that has pockets. Hole would be so small, Zilla wouldn't hardly even notice. I assume this pocket is not like a kangaroo pocket? If I'm wrong, and have misunderstood the anatomy of a Zilla significantly, then I guess I won't insist on minor surgery just so I can look outside. I'll settle for hanging out right next to the catflap. I could be like the Walmart greeter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
[Reproachfully:] Little Floq forget! Zilla wear tailormade spiderman suit always — with pocket. No, pocket not organic, Victorian parlour, fridge and Winter Sports Branch not inside Zilla. Idea is slightly disgusting! Suit material — hmmm — strong and elastic, possibly banlon. Bring garden shears for outbreak! Greeter at catflap fine thought. bishzillaROARR!!17:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC).
I'd forgotten the spiderman suit (it's really the Monster who would remember). I'm making up a nametag now ("Hello! My name is FLOQUENBEAM, I'm your official greeter, welcome to Bishzilla's Pocket"), but that's a really long name tag, so it's taking a while. Even after it's made, it's so long that it sticks out 200mm each side of my body, and I'm worried I might accidentally stab someone if I turn around too quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello! My name is FLOQUENBEAM
I'm your official greeter
Welcome to Bishzilla's Pocket
No, not at all, I only jumped in because I assumed it would discombobulate the new user. Still, apparently they mostly do do vandalism, so you shouldn't worry about it. Or did do vandalism, I see they've been indeffed. I'm glad Floquenbeam took a look, so I don't have to. Bishonen | talk20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC).
A request
Dearest Bishonen: Am I permitted to request that you revoke the one way interaction ban that you imposed on Collect after he falsely associated me with a Democrat Facebook group (or whatever the hell it was)? I would really like to allow him to say whatever is on his mind. I don't need to be protected from Collect interacting with me, as I am a big boy. Further, I find the expectation that I should be prevented from pursuing an WP:ARCA clarification for the Arbcom case that I initiated in March, to be as onerous as it is asinine. Many thanks. - MrX20:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well… let me think. Interaction bans IMO aren't placed just to protect people from each other, but also to protect the project from listening to bootless quarrelling, bloating up of noticeboards, etc. I would have advised you against filing a clarification request regarding Collect; it makes for an uncomfortable situation. But in consideration of the fait accompli, I agree that it's better to lift the one-way ban. Let me just go find where I posted and logged it, and I'll take care of it. Bishonen | talk21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Your points are well taken. We will have to disagree on the advisability of filing a clarification request, for reasons that I carefully considered and am willing to explain (although I doubt you would care to hear). In any case, thank you for lifting the I-ban. I really do appreciate it. - MrX21:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking a look at Scanian dialect? There's an established editor who's now at 5 reverts within 24 hours (against two other editors), plus a number of unacceptable edit-summaries, and a less well established editor who's at four reverts. I've had a clash with one of them over the edit summaries (as can be seen here) and don't want to get involved further (taking things personally is bad for the blood pressure...). /Tom Thomas.W talk22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and handing out blocks would be bad for mine and everybody else's. I've protected for four days. I hope everybody cools down. Bishonen | talk22:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. I didn't ask for a block, or expect you to block anyone, giving them a stern warning would have been enough to satisfy me. If I had been out to get someone blocked I would have filed a report at AN3. Just thought I'd tell you, so you don't get the wrong impression of me. Thomas.W talk09:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, first of all, i'd like to apologize for my somewhat unruly behavior that made you block me. You also pointed out that I shouldn't talk about other users without knowing their intentions, but you probably didn't know of Juan Riley's personal attacks which can be seen in the talk page of British Empire, and his verbal attitude towards other users seen in the talk page of Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. But I bring this up not to accuse of Juan Riley of anything, but to show you that I'm the one who's being the end of every accusation recently. And now, I'm in a dispute with user Mason.Jones. I've made a small edit of taking away a word in article: United States that restricts an idea, in an image caption to be precise and Mason.Jones reverted me, and I was hoping that he would tell me why he did so, but instead he started to blast me with all sorts of accusations. I tried to talk to him first in a manner to let him know why said word in the caption was a bit misleading and even gave him a head-start to defend his idea by giving his ideas of evidence, but he instead continued to blast me with criticism in a somewhat unruly way. By the way, he did that as soon as he started to talk to me. I tried to control myself, but his unruliness made it hard to as seen in his and my talk pages. And where can I ask for admin intervention? or can you help us out. (N0n3up (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC))
I agree this edit summary was quite inappropriate, and also the way the user continued the theme of your personal horribleness on both your pages. I've warned them. As for the matter of fact, you should both take the discussion to Talk:United States — not each other's pages. Bishonen | talk16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, I disagree with your diatribe and I will not retract my comment. I have had the pleasure to read the "new editor's" sloppy edits as well as his/her messages to other editors, and they are as I describe them: puerile carping. The "new editor" has also sent me increasingly verbose messages, the last one lecturing me about racism and prejudice. This is one of the more toxic features of Wikipedia. The other one is indulging bad editors, which you are doing. This editor has shown repeatedly that he/she doesn't work well with others. Ten critical messages on the editor's own talk page are proof enough to me. Thanks for your concern.Mason.Jones (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
My diatribe? That's nice. You don't have to retract anything. Please take this as a warning: if you continue to make personal remarks about N0n3up without relevance to content, I will block you. Since this is a warning, I will cross-post it to your own page to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
I said my piece and stand by it one hundred percent. I realize you are a WP admin, but I deserve no administrative threats from you -- none.Mason.Jones (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Feedback
As you have adminned in the caste area before, I'd like your feedback on an AE/ARCA proposal I'm putting together -- User:SpacemanSpiff/sandbox2. Feel free to modify directly and/or place comments at the discussion page of that sandbox. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Self-ban
Hello, Bish. I noticed that you page-banned yourself for three months from ANI because of the appaling signal-to-noise ratio there, but it's not only ANI that is having problems, it's all of en-WP. It has become a hostile environment and is no longer what it used to be, so I'm tempted to not only ban myself from selected pages but site-ban myself from all of en-WP for a few months, or more... Thomas.W talk11:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I question whether a non-notable editor's cursing in edit summaries is what creates a hostile environment; hostility is endemic and systemic to Wikipedia, and it's being promulgated by people in positions of authority. Cursing is a natural reaction to the horrific treatment many editors receive. Alakzi (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi, I know that's a kind of sentiment you like to express as often as possible, but I'm still surprised you thought it remotely relevant to either my complaint or Thomas's complaint. Frankly it reminds me of the tiresome way so many rush to get their two bits in at ANI without troubling to find out what the issue is all about. Bishonen | talk12:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
I expressed a sentiment that's tangentially relevant. I'm aware that the circumstances in this particular instance were different; and you're welcome to ban me from your talk page if my posting here upsets you. Besides, administrators upset me. Alakzi (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You really ought to read the first post in a thread before commenting in it, it would save you from making yourself look like a fool. Because your first post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with my post, Gerda's post or anything else here. Other than proving my point about en-WP having become a more hostile environment, but not because of "people in positions of authority" but because of people like you. Thomas.W talk12:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've seen you around, Thomas - basically all you do is try to put people on the spot and repeatedly failing. I will now be unwatchng this shitfest. Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with someone else. I also think you've worn out your welcome here in Bish's virtual parlor, even though Bish is too polite to tell you off. I usually am too, but I'm a bit grumpier than usual today, because of the weather, so I'll do it for her. So shoo. Thomas.W talk12:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Cometh the civility brigade? It is chicken and egg: I am a nobody and I curse in reaction, as you describe, but am a bête noire among those who seek greater civility. The case that Bish raised was of the "obvious disruption" variety but things are often more nuanced. I refuse to bow to those who want lists of banned words etc, especially given that most incivility here doesn't even use them.
Sure, enjoy your break, - in a way I do the same or more. I was on ANI only a few times in 6 years, remember once defending in 2011 (unsuccessful but archived), once defending myself (no really successful), once again defending (successful). Life is too short for noticeboards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar
Enjoy your break from ANI but be sure to come back - I don't think many of us are thick skinned enough to fill the gap while you're away :/ Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope that's an opium den I'm sitting in on the right? Hmmm... that's what Bishzilla's pocket needs, maybe I'll suggest it to her. A small opium den pocket annexe, or lean-to, specially for ANI convalescents Bishonen | talk10:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)..
I won't interact with him further. What confuses me, though, is your apparent and persistent assumption of good faith on their part. Have you been able to find any "consensus" that they speak of, other than "getting N0n3up's way"? Mason.Jones' assessment seems accurate. --Golbez (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate you informing our mutual friend of how he should comport himself with regard to me and others. I have told you I won't interact with him further. He sees this as an invitation. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No need, I only wanted to show why said redundant word should be deleted. Tried to bring everyone together to settle this once and for all but apparently no one want's to listen. (N0n3up (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC))
That's good that you took your reasons to Talk:United States, User:N0n3up. (Oh god you're in two different sections on my page. Well, let's stay here.) But you should have stopped there. The idea is to start a factual discussion and see what other people think of the presence/absence of the word "European". Of what will go in the article. You're not making yourself look good by taking that as an opportunity to complain about what other people did earlier. The idea of Wikipedia communication is to let stuff like that go, to leave it behind, and discuss only the article and the reasons for one version or another. Especially it's not good to complain about Golbez after he has said he'll avoid you; it does look a bit like you think you now have a free field for it. I suggest you cut out the bit after "… tend to think only about the European immigrants and not other groups, cultures, ethnicity and so on" and replace it with a simple invitation to others to express their opinion. Mention that you were reverted, if you like — it's useful for others to know there has been disagreement — but there's no need for mentioning names, or for a blow-by-blow account: if anybody cares, they'll look in the history. Altogether it's good manners to not mention any editors by name on article talkpages, unless it's needed for clarity or you think it's important to ping somebody. (With people who're likely to watch the page, there's no need for pings. If they're interested, they'll respond; you have to leave that to them.) You're commenting on the content, not the contributor, right? And if you do have to mention somebody, please have the courtesy to spell their names right. (Not "Goblez".) I find it hard enough to spell your name, with the figures in it, but I do my best.
As long as nobody has replied, you're free to change your post at Talk:United States; once somebody has, you'd have to mess about with crossing stuff out instead, so if you want to follow my suggestion, you shouldn't wait too long. Bishonen | talk21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
I know that judging by the tenor of the debate, myself and Crisco 1492 are fighting for a lost cause now there's an angry mob out for blood and the admin corps makes the juiciest target, but have you actually thought through the implications of "Admins are not allowed to accept payment for any services on Wikipedia"? As worded, that clause would make "I really liked your work on …, let my buy you a drink" grounds for automatic desysopping.
Sure, the crats will probably discount frivolous desysopping attempts, but it would provide a permanent harassment mechanism in which any self-appointed "concerned user" can demand an itemised receipt for the bar tab of any admin attending a Wikipedia meetup, and in which any admin accepting one of these would be instantly desysopped. (The British Newspaper Archive gave me a free subscription a couple of weeks ago, on the express understanding that it be used on Wikipedia—were your wording in place, that would put me somewhere between MyWikiBiz and Wifione on the corruption scale. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples; virtually every part of The Wikipedia Library functions because a private corporation or state body is giving away freebies to selected Wikipedia editors in return for a hoped-for improved Wikipedia coverage of their particular field.) I don't see how Wikipedia could function with such a rule in place unless admins were to withdraw from content editing altogether and just become a block-and-protect warrior elite. ‑ iridescent20:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea there were perks! Hundreds if not thousands! A whole new world! However. I still think a complicated rule is kind of useless, just for being complicated. So perhaps the rule about it is a bad idea altogether. That's disappointing, but I guess I already knew it's really, really hard to change anything on Wikipedia, no matter how problematic the status quo is. So I don't think you have to worry overmuch that there will actually be any kind of new rule. Bishonen | talk20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC).
There is no loophole small enough that someone will not exploit it. That is quite often the way that lawyers make their living. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know
Hi, sorry to trouble you again, but, Michael of the Muze whom you've blocked for 31 hours is the latest sockpuppet of a troll who's been plaguing NeilN for quite some time. The troll's latest shtick is to post user-block templates on NeilN's talk page in order to pretend block him.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros: If you could label those users with Template:Sockpuppet, it makes future banning easier. Also identifying new ones - sometimes one sock turns out to be connected to another user in a completely different part of the encyclopaedia. Ogress18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Side note: You have linked to WP:Complete bollocks twice under Essay's on your user page. Accident or an indication of the number of times it should have been cited but, for politeness sake, it was not? :) JbhTalk23:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In case you have not seen the goings on around BiH. He was a paid editor, possibly part of a ring [365], who had autopatrol and used it to create dozens of promotional articles. No evidence it was a multi-user account, either in serial or parallel. It would be interesting to check in such cases though. JbhTalk10:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean it would be interesting to check in this case (hasn't it been done?), or always check in cases where users are found to have created promotional articles under cover of autopatrolled? (I think we may hand out autopatrolled too easily.) Perhaps you want to take it to Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody? Bishonen | talk11:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC).
I would say it would be worthwhile in this and all cases but it would be a lot of work. My guess is those who are good at finding behavioral evidence at SPI would be good at it, since checking is looking for evidence of either a break and change in pattern or tone of writing (serial) or a kind of 'multiple-personality' (parallel) what to look for. Mostly I think just getting the possibility on the radar of those who do the investigations would be most effective in terms of effort but, as far as I know we do not have a collection of standard procedures for COI investigations where this could be discusses. Is LTA Orangemoody the place?
I agree that autopatroled is too easy to get and no one seems to check if it is being abused. I feel that sooner or later we will collapse under the weight of our own anarchy. If it was not anarchy it would not be Wikipedia though so... :) JbhTalk11:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Request
Hi Bishonen, i wrote the following on Salvio's page: Request. Please let me know whether you agree to my mentioning India and Indians on the TP of Voltaire for the reason i give. (As per Salvio it is the banning Admin who can give the relief i seek, and you are the Admin who imposed the sanction on me.) Soham321 (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Soham. I would have been happy to let Salvio decide this, but since he has lobbed it back to me,[366] I have to tell you I'm not inclined to lift the ban for such a purpose. That's because I'm having some trouble following your argument for it. You've proposed on Talk:Voltaire that the sentence "According to William Cohen, like most other polygenists, Voltaire believed that because of their different origins blacks did not entirely share the natural humanity of whites" should be removed from the article. And the reason you give is that "Cohen is not substantiating his claim by giving reference to Voltaire's writing". You're not supposed to argue with a secondary source based on your own original research. The strange thing to me is that when a user (Carlstak, who unfortunately didn't sign) answered you on that talkpage that yes, Voltaire expressed some very racist views, and gave examples from Voltaire's texts, you replied that he, Carlstak, doesn't get to use primary sources (=Voltaire's texts) to refute you. And yet it looks in your post on Salvio's page[367] as if that's exactly what you yourself propose doing. How is it that you know Carlstak doesn't get to do that, and yet you propose doing it yourself? Especially since Carlstak was merely arguing with you, whereas you would be arguing with a published secondary source. Moreover, Cohen's sentence was about racism wrt blacks. If it was the case that Voltaire had a completely different view of Indians than of Africans, it's not really relevant to the Cohen quote. Bringing in the subjects of India and Indians here would be very tenuously relevant, and, as the admin who imposed your topic ban, I'm not inclined to lift it for such a purpose. Since Salvio won't make the call (presumably per arbcom rules, isn't allowed to make the call), I'm afraid you'll have to go via WP:AE or WP:AN or WP:ARCA if you're not satisfied with my decision. Bishonen | talk13:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
I am going to make one last effort to change your mind before i decide whether to appeal your decision. First, i would not have quoted Voltaire using a primary source (i.e. taking an extract from Voltaire's writing myself from a book comprising of Voltaire's writing either in the original or in translation) as you seem to imagine. I would have used a secondary source for this purpose. Second, it is not my fault that in the quote or quotes of the secondary source that i wish to use for this purpose there is a reference to India or Indians also. Soham321 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? Sorry, that's not what it sounded like to me. However. If you only quote secondary sources re Voltaire's putative racism, that happen to mention India/Indians, and don't yourself talk about the Indian aspect, I wouldn't mind that. But I frankly don't see what use that would be to you — I don't see how it could work. As soon as somebody starts to argue with you, you'd have to argue too. I'd rather not imagine having to monitor these conversations, and having to make one borderline call after the other. Frankly, Soham, don't you think you have pushed and chewed at the borders of your topic ban enough? Why in god's name can't you just give the subject a wide berth for six months (now just over four months remaining)? If you don't want to, then take it to AE and request a free pass for discussing Indian matters on Talk:Voltaire, because that's clearly what you'd need. I'd recommend AE, but since this seems to be important to you, you may want to consult an arb, such as Salvio, about which page he thinks would be best. AN and AE and ARCA will all work, they're all appropriate, but he may have advice about which would be the best for you. Bishonen | talk15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
In fact it is Abecedare's claim that is simply false. Cohen refers to Voltaire's "racism" on three separate occasions on pages 86 and 88 of his book. The second time (on page 88) he gives a paragraph length supposed quotation from Voltaire without giving any reference. This is simply slipshod scholarship. The third time he gives a reference to a supposed letter written by Voltaire, but this is not clinching evidence considering that another letter of Voltaire supporting slavery has been challenged as a forgery (this is mentioned in the section on 'Views on Race and Slavery'. Additionally this letter of Voltaire endorsing slavery contradicts what Voltaire has written in the Philosophical Dictionary which is also mentioned in this section in Voltaire's WP page). But it is the earlier mention to Voltaire's comment on blacks on page 86 ("More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites") which is being challenged here on the ground that Cohen is attributing a view to Voltaire without referring to Voltaire's writing or referring to any other authority. Soham321 (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Soham321, you really cannot criticise modern scholarship published by university presses just because you think it is "slipshod" work. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Being "challenged as a forgery" by some doesn't automatically mean that it is a forgery, just like the claim repeatedly made by some people that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery doesn't make him foreign born and a Muslim. So you can't say that Cohen's book has no value as a source just because some other scholars or whoever have challenged the authenticity of a letter by Voltaire that is mentioned in the book. Unless you can prove beyond doubt, supported by reliable sources, that the letter is a forgery. Thomas.W talk16:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is what actual scholars have to say about Cohen's book,
It provides the best available review of French thinking about race and slavery as it developed from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and surveys the application of French ideas in West Africa and the West Indies...the initial response of French scholars was critical: they accused Cohen of unfairly stigmatizing French intellectuals as racist and of neglecting the French national tradition of tolerance and revolutionary heritage of fraternity. If Cohen's work seemed harsh on the French at the time it came out, at present it appears prescient in its identification of the stages in racial thinking. Work on the history of race and racism has confirmed the worldwide expansion of scientific racism; Cohen's strength is to identify the stages through which that expansion went for France... Cohen's study of French thinking,..., remains one of the strongest and most accessible treatments of this important topic.
The Seeber book that is the ultimate source of the objection Soham is citing dates back to 1937 and received pretty poor reviews for its bias and holes even then. Based on this (admittedly small) sample size, I am seeing similar issues with Soham's editing at Voltaire as I had observed at Charvaka-related pages: ignoring modern scholarship based on personal POV and flawed reading of primary and outdated sources. Someone more interested in the area should review Soham's other edits to the page. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure how or why Abecedare is claiming that i am citing or relying upon some book written by Seeber; i am doing no such thing. Abecedare is welcome to have a problem with my editing just as i have a problem with his editing when, to give one example, he used WP:FRINGE sources like Klostermaier and Elst in making certain assertions in the past. (To be fair to him, Abecedare claimed he was relying on Klostermaier, and when i pointed out that according to his WP page Klostermaier is a fringe source, he claimed he had confused Klostermaier with Elst. I did not have the heart to tell him that, according to WP, Elst is also a fringe source.) Soham321 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
What you think about Abecedare is utterly irrelevant to the question of Voltaire's attitude to race, so drop that line. If you're not relying on Seeber, then what source(s) are you relying on for your dismissal of Cohen's work? That's a simple question and needs an equally simple answer from you. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Can spare Bishonen the talk-page traffic and discuss the content issues at the article talkpage. I must say that from what I have reviewed, I find Soham's edits to the Voltaire article quite troubling (see article talkpage for details). Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
If you were that concerned about 'Shonen's talk page traffic, you could have spared her the three posts you've already made in this section. Let me remind you that the talk page at Voltaire is for discussing improvements to the Voltaire article. The thread here, howsoever inappropriately placed, focusses on Shonen's topic ban of Soham. While it is ongoing here, all of her many talk page watchers will be able to see clearly how inappropriate it would be to relax the ban, considering Soham's inability to properly use sources and his reliance solely on his own opinion in order to dismiss a published secondary source. That should seal the fate of his appeal. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I am having difficulty with this WP:AE appeal. In particular i think my appeal needs to be put in another section but i am unable to do so. I am unable even to perform any tweaks on my appeal. Soham321 (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you put it in the template. I've added an appeal to the clerks to help you format it and put it in the right place. I'll put a note on the clerks' talkpage, too. Bishonen | talk17:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
Done, but I don't suppose they're necessarily reading that page every five minutes. Talkpage stalkers to the rescue, please? I really don't have time right now, nor am I much use with the templatefests that are arb pages. Bishonen | talk17:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
[368] My problem is I thought Cameron Diaz was so amusing in My Best Friend's Wedding that I just had to share [369]; thought I'd see if I like this place or not, and nine and a half years I seem to still be here. (Haven't decided yet.) Ineffable.
By the way, good call on the ANI break -- I managed to go 6 April to 22 August with only 6 edits, and 3 of them were mostly just to tell tps's that I wasn't dead or anything. Problem is, when you go back, ANI seems even more absurd than when you left it. NE Ent22:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bishonen, sorry to bother you once more. I want to fix the infobox of Mario Vargas Llosa in regards to his spouses which shows as only spouse when it should show as spouse(s). There seems to be some trick in the infobox edit that if you add something extra (which I did: (s)) to the word spouse in the infobox, it doesn't show when you click save edit. And on other notes, I have a feeling user JuanRiley has been stalking my edits on articles such as France, United Kingdom and the American Civil War and more recently in the talk page of an article recently edited by me. And all this since our first dispute. Although he doesn't seem to do much to my edits, the idea of him stalking me is kinda creepy. (N0n3up (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC))
Not sure it should be "spouses" unless we're talking polygamy. Anyway, I'm rotten with infoboxes, pinging RexxS. About the "creepy": a) he may have similar interests as you, and b) the "contributions" button is there for a reason. If people don't "do much to your edits", ignore them, don't keep count of where they turn up (you don't want to be a reverse stalker, do you?). And frankly, they'd have to do some consistently bad stuff to your edits for me to be interested. Bishonen | talk09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC).
I don't think it has to be labelled "Spouses", as he was only married to them one at a time. I think it reads okay either way. But if you really want the label to read "Spouses", then {{infobox writer}} allows you to do this by changing the parameter in the infobox from |spouse= to |spouses=. You can't assume that every type of infobox will offer that facility, though. P.S. I changed the article to use {{ubl}} (unbulleted list) for the lists instead of making line breaks with <br> - it's much kinder to screen-reader users. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
RexxS I didn't wan't to put it as "spouses" but as "spouse(s)", which seems to be the normal version because "spouse", as it appears on MVLL's article doesn't seem like the normal version. I was aiming for versions such as in David Cameron's or Francisco Franco's infobox where it shows as "spouse(s)". And thanks for the adjustments on the article. (N0n3up (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC))
Both David Cameron and Francisco Franco use {{infobox officeholder}} which only has the |spouse= option; that then produces the label Spouses(s) regardless of the number of spouses. The only 'normal' version would be {{infobox person}}, but article writers want more specialised infoboxes at times, hence {{infobox writer}} is used in MVLL, whereas DC & FF use {{infobox officeholder}}, There is no mechanism to ensure that each different type of infobox is consistent with all the others in the labels it uses. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have not really been around for weeks, indeed months, but I have been suffering regular harassment from Jbhunley, and you and others seem to be condoning his behaviour. It is never acceptable for someone to give another person unwanted attention for months on end.
Many of the articles he nominates for deletion should be tagged, not deleted. Wikipedia needs improvement, not amputation.
The number of my articles he has nominated is well up in double figures.
He does not seem to read or research the articles he nominates properly.
He does not have much or any knowledge about some of the thousands of articles he nominates.
He seems to have no understanding that people have lives off Wikipedia. I cannot spend SIX HOURS dealing with one of his mistakes.
You seem to have little understanding of what "personal abuse" is. Coming back after weeks, or even months, and finding someone is still trawling through my user history and leaving messages on my page - that is personal abuse. If he is acting within the rules, it is about time the rules were changed. Wikipedia was not set up to be a toxic environment, full of cliques, it is supposed to be the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I would say double figures is a bit of an exaggeration and adding "well" to it is at best hyperbole. I have nominated eight of his articles, one was a CSD on an existing AfD because of what I, and others, thought might be a COPYVIO issue. Of those I Withdrew one because a second review was found and it technically passed WP:NBOOK. and another, a BLPPROD, was improved by another editor. Of the seven AfDs of MacRusgail's articles I have been involved in six were deleted ot redirected. MacRusgail has an ownership issue. He has taken part in only one of these AfD processes and then only to demand I withdraw the nomination, not to participate constructively.
Marion ArnottBLP PROD - MacRusgail - ("Delisting stalker's nomination)"[370] (So much for his request articles be tagged.)No RS added simply a link to a personal web site labeled as such. The article was later improved by NeilN[371] - Was easier once we figured out she was a Crime writer more than a Science Fiction writer. The claim she won the British Fantisy Award [372] seems to be based solely on misreading British Fantasy Award because no source makes that claim. Original article seems to have been made by pulling her name off of the British Fantasy Award page. See Talk:Marion Arnott
Sweere-arse Was nominated for AfD by another editor [373] I did tag it CSD because the text was not from the source cited but seemed to be copied from The Dictionary of Scots Language. There was some confusion about copyright. I have the following notes taken from edit summaries in my CSD log.
Sweere-arse: CSD G12 ({{db-copyvio}}); notified MacRusgail (talk·contribs) 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC) - (declining speedy deletion; not a copyvio) and (Restoring speedy tag; I have been shown how this is a copyvio), then (attributing per Wikipedia:Plagiarism) and (Nominated for deletion)
I will not change my assessment of an article, either way, because of who the author is. If MacRusgail did not write poor articles about non-notable and barely notable subjects or put sources, as required, in his BLP articles there would not be an issue. I have looked through the articles he has created because he is creating poor articles, some of which violate WP:BLP. In that process I have also cleaned, expanded or corrected some of his articles.
I am quite tired of MacRusgail accusing me of harassing him and bad mouthing me, including in his unblock request [381]. His inability to deal with the normal editing process combined with his inability to let things go seems to make him a poor fit for a collaborative editing environment. I am human and I do make mistakes but this constant whinging and crying harassment from an editor who does not follow our policies, to the point of appearing to flaunt that he will SOCK ("p.s. In the meantime I shall continue to visit and edit this website, using various means to evade stalkers and the various breeds of socially inept."[382]) is getting a bit old. MacRusgail has said he will take me to ANI but never has. I presume because somewhere deep inside he knows it would likely go poorly for him.
I suggest he collect whatever his evidence of stalking/harassment is and present it and present it else it is time for him to STFU. I will happily present evidence of his misbehavior, including multiple gross personal attacks, vandalism, multiple issues of casting aspersions for the purpose of bullying and of course abuse of process for filing an ANI to harass. I would have done so months ago if I had any inkling that ANI would do anything about civility issues. Frankly I have my list of things I do not give a shit about and MacRusgail is somewhere between #100,000 and #100,000,000 but I can not arsed to place anything below #50 in order so I can not be precise on just how much of a shit I do not give. JbhTalk18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
"I am quite tired of MacRusgail accusing me of harassing him and bad mouthing me, including in his unblock request [12]. His inability to deal with the normal editing process combined with his inability to let things go seems to make him a poor fit for a collaborative editing environment. I am human and I do make mistakes but this constant whinging and crying harassment from an editor who does not follow our policies, to the point of appearing to flaunt that he will SOCK" - Yes, well I'm human, and you have either not factored this element in at all, or do not understand me as a human. I do not think you understand "collaboration" - this would include matters such as using plain language (not jargon which changes every other week), or how other people think and feel. Instead you rush around tagging things for deletion, often subject matters you know little about.
You might call this "constant whinging", but it is the only thing this silly website allows me to do. In the real world I would deal with this problem quite differently. By several different means. Suffice to say Wikipedia is not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", it is a self-selecting oligarchy with too much time on their hands and its own language.
FYI, I have successfully worked on collaborative projects elsewhere under different names. I have also been involved in publishing, so I know a good deal more about novels than you credit me with. I even read them.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinged here, so responding. Not often that a veteran editor is so wrong, but here we are. We can't improve articles if we can't find sources which we can work from. Also, Jbhunley is not asking for the articles to be improved, they're just asking for sources (through AFD) to show the articles can be improved (i.e., show notability of the subject). From what I've seen, they do their best to meet WP:BEFORE. I don't know about MacRusgail's other articles, but Marion Arnott was quite sloppily researched as detailed above yet MacRusgail seems to be content with us spending our time fixing their mistakes. --NeilNtalk to me19:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether you are not a "veteran editor" or not, you have done little but act as a Yesman. You have never tried to see/understand my POV on this matter.
"We can't improve articles if we can't find sources which we can work from." - Yes you can. Research doesn't begin and end with Google! (There are such things as physical libraries etc. Not everything is online, yet.) Articles cannot be improved properly if someone slaps on notices which have to be acted on in a day or two.
I have had to put up with months of attention, and you and others have condoned it. And another thing, can you and certain other people use plain English please? It would be helpful if we spoke the same language occasionally. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
MacRusgail, I don't see anything personal in Jbhunley's AfDs. As far as I can see, he has principles for them, and those principles don't include who wrote them. He has nominated lots of articles for deletion (you say "thousands", which may be hyperbole) — which is a service to Wikipedia, if they're non-notable/unsourced — and eight of them are yours. That hardly demonstrates that he has a special evil eye for your articles. If you have a problem with the rules of this place, please don't take it out on an individual user, try to get the rules changed. Wikipedia:Harassment is the relevant policy. You can propose a change on the talkpage and try to get consensus for it. Bishonen | talk20:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC).
"I don't see anything personal in Jbhunley's AfDs" - I've had MONTHS ON END of this man's attention. It started when I questioned something he did, and it hasn't stopped since. I've not even been on this website most of the summer, because of him.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC) p.s. "I can not be precise on just how much of a shit I do not give." - this seems to sum up this man's general attitude towards life and certain other people.
@MacRusgail: It is time to DROPTHEFUCKINGSTICK. I see you even reverted the talk page of the admin who refused your unblock request just so you could continue this dispute[383]. You should take his response to heart (→"Not them": Not here. I have nothing to add to this discussion other than "take it elsewhere".)[384]
You have done nothing but piss and moan for months and accuse me of harassment a minimum of 22 times, without being able to substantiate it. (See here to avoid this and the following being unsubstantiated accusation.) You have been told over and over again you are not being harassed and repeatedly claiming so will get you blocked. You have done absolutely nothing to improve these articles you care so much about. They did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and were deleted. You need to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria, the concept of verifibility or the fact that biographies of of living peoplemust have references to reliable sources. The rules have not changed that much in several years so if you do not understand them that is entirely your problem. Now drop it, get over it and piss off or take it to AN/ANI. I give not a damn which you choose, if I need to spend an hour or so digging up some more diffs and turn my prep into an actual ANI posting I will - I had hoped this was over a week ago and had just blanked my prep page, now you are back.
Nearly 90% of your contributions since 23 April have focused on me [385]. I am tired of being the focus of your insecurities. If you think any of your articles that have been deleted at AfD are actually notable then get some sources together and write them. Oh! wait! If there were sources you would have identified and used them when you wrote the article or at the very least you would have brought them up at AfD - at least that is what a good faith editor would have done. JbhTalk 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC) On further reflection struck my more extreme comments. My apologies to MacRusgail for losing my temper. JbhTalk23:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jbhunley, MacRusgail: if anybody's harassing anybody here, it's you harassing him. Don't post on my page or Jpgordon's page or any other user talkpage about Jbhunley any more. You have been answered, none of us have any more to say about it, but you just keep going. Take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI or shut up about it. I'll crosspost this warning to your talkpage to make sure you see it. Bishonen | talk22:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC).
Yes. I believe in saving those kinds of expression for when they're really needed... and when they are, I believe in using them. [Considers.] Hmmm. Maybe I should go back and bold it? Bishonen | talk20:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC).
Was that a Noun? Verb? Interjection? ...or Directive? --DHeyward (talk)
I don't have anything to type...just wanted to see Laurel and Hardy dancing around. Oh, well it's been ten minutes so time to give them a rest and hit save.--MONGO08:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ms Sarah Welch. I did take quite a long look at the situation when you pinged me yesterday, but the subject at issue is simply too foreign to me, and too erudite; I don't understand it. I agree that Mohanbhan's tone is often rebarbative, but not enough for me to sanction or warn him from a position of ignorance. I suggest you call on a smarter admin. Bishonen | talk15:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC).
I have a feeling that someone's about to learn that if you tilt at windmills for long enough, eventually you get caught in a spinning blade. ‑ iridescent20:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (edit conflict) Déjà vu all over again. Soham, the link you have given in your ARCA request will rot as soon as your AE request is archived, which will be any minute now (it was just closed). I'll post a couple of permanent links for the convenience of the arbitrators. Bishonen | talk20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC).
Bish, could you revisit one of those? The one second one (numbered [7]) doesn't seem to go where it ought to go, unless I'm much mistaken... Yunshui雲水21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the hats; what's happening is: the page opens to all those hatted threads in the "open" state, the page bumps you down to the Soham header, then the templates kick in and close all the hatted threads--after you've already been bumped down. Since a closed hat takes up much less vertical space than an open hat, you end up way further down than where the thread ends up. It's still there; you just have to scroll up. Writ Keeper [[User
Thanks for that explanation Writ Keeper! I haven't even tried the specific link being discussed, but recognize the behavior from ANI etc archives. Oft puzzled me, but never enough for me to trace the cause. Glad to transfer one of many such questions to the "solved" pile. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Aha, the hats! Yes, I can testify that landing on the wrong part of the page is the rule rather than the exception on ANI, when one follows a section link. I mean, was the rule, in the days when I frequented ANI. I never knew it was caused by the hat infestation, I just became resigned to going to the TOC and looking for the section I should be at. Bishonen | talk22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC).
We have an issue...
At Crusades and Talk:Crusades, where an editor is repeatedly readding information that is not supported by the citations he's giving. He's at like 6RR or something like that, but ignores the actual misrepresentation issue brought up on the talk page and just keeps saying his edits are supported. Help! Ealdgyth - Talk21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't do anything about the edit warring as such, since the user wasn't warned about 3RR. They haven't reverted again since Kansas Bear warned them. (It's helpful to warn edit warriors.) Sorry, I don't have time to check the more complex question of the citations — I'm just going to bed. Better ask an admin in a more advantageous timezone. Bishonen | talk22:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC).
Oh, nevermind I guess, Bearean Hunter just blocked. Not sure that's completely "fair", he didn't revert since his first EW warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish, Floq. I detest taking folks to the drama boards or 3RR .. I prefer to not use such big bludgeons if at all possible. (Not to mention I've been very sporadic on my editing time today - and what time I did have was spent ... checking the sources and reading them to make sure they supporting what was stated.) Still the problem of his last reverting in of unsupported info Ealdgyth - Talk22:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted that last addition, and left him some advice on his talk page. Berean Hunter unblocked. So hopefully all is settled. Let one of us know if not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
(tps) Well, if you're going to go on an edit-war crusade, I really can't thing of a better article. Almost want to give them a "Crusading the Crusades" barnstar. But...not really. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Some admin help
Bish, can you take a look at Capankajsmilyo. He seems to be a good faith editor but seems to have a not-any-good grasp of WP:RS and in particular WP:HISTRS and no amount of assistance seems to have had any impact. I'm uninvolved in the area but I have been trying to help him understand encyclopaedic contributions etc but haven't succeeded. He's had numerous nudges and informative bits and pieces of advice from editors in that topic area including Abecedare, Kautilya3, Ogress, JJ etc but I don't think the message has gone through. Rather than give you diffs, I'm linking User talk:Capankajsmilyo/Archive 1 where a lot of discussion rests. A lot more discussions have happened at various article talk pages and those could be found from the contribution history. I also issued an ARBIPA DS/alert three weeks ago, but that didn't help beyond a day. While intentions may be good, the end result is getting to be very disruptive now. Having been in an advisory role, I'm at my wits end, and am coming to you for some fresh perspective and/or action. Hope you can earn your admin pay through this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff11:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, my ban was regarding HISTRS. All my edits which were opposed were on Historical Kings, empires or dynasty. I edited Jainism and Digambara few hours ago. Why was it opposed? None of my previous edits on the said pages were opposed, nor did I do any HISTRS edit. I just did basic grammar and some simple content which has no relation whatsoever with any history. It would be helpful if you can please look into this. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)07:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
(Please, Boris. This refers to a request the user has made on WP:AN.) Kapil.xerox, I'm sorry to have to throw a pile of formalities at you in reply, but there are two kinds of topic ban:
1) Community topic bans
2) Arbitration enforcement topic bans
You have already requested a community topic ban, with your request on WP:AN. If consensus for your request forms on AN, a community ban will be placed. But it's not looking very promising, is it? It's many hours since you proposed it, and the only comment so far is from me. As I said, it's problematic that it's such a long request. Everybody here is a volunteer, and it's daunting for volunteers to grapple with a long and complex request and do the research involved — it just takes a lot of time, which most people probably prefer to spend doing something else — for instance, comment on short, simple requests, that they can research quickly. Basically, all you can do about your AN now is wait, and hope for more input and discussion.
I actually think 2), the enforcement ban, is more likely to happen. Enforcement bans can be requested on WP:AE, and uninvolved admins decide about them. But these bans can basically only be made with respect to disruption that has happened after a user has been alerted to the arbcom discretionary sanctions — the kind of alerts that I just gave him/her. So I'm afraid you have to wait there, too. It's unfortunate that the user didn't get those alerts sooner. Not that I expect regular users such as yourself to be aware of this whole bureaucracy with the alert templates, but it would have been helpful if for instance one of the admins who have sanctioned and warned to user had also alerted them. (Or maybe someone has — but I've checked the talkpage history, and I can't see any sign of it.) If my alerts don't make any difference to the user's behavior (but let's by all means hope that they do), you can make a WP:AE request in a week or two. (Keep it short, if you do! Summarize! Admins are volunteers too.) Or you can ask an uninvolved admin on their talkpage in a week or two, which is a lot simpler. Ask me if you like. Bishonen | talk15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
My god, yes, tell me about it. It's depressing that there is so much detail, isn't it? And remember at all times that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The user's problem is, basically, that they did take it to ANI, and somebody moved it to AN — I presume with good intentions, but AN is less trafficked, and also the request was TL;DR, and, in short, nobody's commenting. It's a shame when that happens to a good-faith user who's trying to report a problem. :-( Bishonen | talk16:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
@User:Bishonen - You asked me to contact you if disruptions continue after the alerts/sanctions. I would like to inform you that the user's disruptive behavior and tendentious editing did actually continue regardless of the sanctions given (as expected). In summary, the user continued to make personal attacks (diff here) for which user was also warned by another user on their talk page (diff here) who reiterated the same point in my AN/I that their apologies rang hollow. Besides making personal attacks, user continued to make disruptive edits and started edit warring on Swaminarayan related pages. For disruption at BAPS, admin has presently blocked user for 2 months (see block log here). All of this provide ample evidence that user's disruptive editing post sanctions has remained unchanged. In addition, user immediately deleted the sanctions along with earlier warnings on their talk page - showing that user was aware of the sanctions. User also spent writing replies with false promises of change. As per your earlier message, instead of making a WP:AE request, you said I can directly ask you. BTW, my AN report has already been archived by a bot. Don't know if that needs to be revived. Appreciate your guidance on this. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kapil.xerox. As you say, Swamiblue has been blocked for two months, so a topic ban isn't on the cards right now. No admin is going to entertain a topic ban during a long block — what for? The block stops all editing. If you should feel the user resumes disruption after this block expires, I suggest you talk with the blocking admin, Bbb23. Apparently he would consider an indefinite block in such a case — a much more drastic sanction than a topic ban. Bishonen | talk08:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen, I am the user that Kapil.xerox has a dispute with. I want to become a better editor and am having a content dispute at the Akshardham Delhi article and because of the problems there, I became extremely irate and I should not have. I want to know where I can find some help to get more editors involved in our discussions. What is the best way to go about resolving this?Swamiblue (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wish I could, but I don't really have the time. When you reply on WP:AN, you can appeal for an uninvolved admin to do so. Admins read that page, and provided you keep it short, they'll hopefully read your post. Bishonen | talk18:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC).
Arbitration Request
I have filed a request for arbitration over my last block:
Thank you, User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. God, I hate your username. I think I'll comment. But one thing strikes me immediately: I don't like people mentioned in case names, and I don't think it's very popular with the committee either. And it doesn't say what the focus of the case is. Have you considered calling it something like "Request for review of admin actions"? Bishonen | talk14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC).
More seriously, if you'll review, say, the index of arbitration cases in 2015 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2014, the Committee prefers a more specific topic area than a generally-occurring phenomenon, such as "Request for review of admin actions", and instead prefers a specific topic area which the case will be about, such as a mainspace article topic, a username, or some other specific name.
Because of that, and that there are now two cases that have names that indicate that they're related to admin conduct and nothing else, I'm going to propose on the clerks' list to change the name of the case requests. Thanks L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I know it's a bit of old hat at the moment, but he was brought up on a talk page recently and I checked the history to verify a(n apparently incorrect) claim I wanted to make. (It's possible he's IP-socking again, by the way.) Why does he still have talk page access after this? Does the fact that you were the main target of the rant mean that your reverting your own previously restoring his talk page access would have been taken by some as an abuse of admin privileges? Because I really don't think anyone would fault you for it, and I have half a mind to ask another admin to do it anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, thank you. But no, it's not that I'm worried about accusations of admin abuse; I'm just not much of a one for removing tpa, and less so when I'm myself the target of the anger. Ask another admin if you feel strongly about it. As regards IP-socking: yes, he is. I've blocked the IP you refer to for a couple of days, and also made one rangeblock for three months: you can see these blocks at 1 Oct and 2 Oct in my log. It's obvious per WP:DUCK, and also, I had already blocked TE editing from these very IPs and ranges in 2014 (that's why he's so mad at me). But I appreciate your tip; feel free to let me know if you should see other related IPs making similar edits, because that might mean more rangeblocks are needed. Bishonen | talk13:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC).
Not to worry; I am in the business of annotating block logs, and I intend to take care of it as soon as ArbCom gets its act together and makes clear how they want to handle the case request. Srsly tho, the fact that this is perceived as anything except a black-and-white case of an involved block is pretty disappointing, and makes me think that Floquenbeam had the right idea. We've lost the necessary critical mass of clueful editors, admins, and Arbs that was a prerequisite for this place to function. MastCellTalk16:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I've already got a note for the block log typed up, and was kind of hoping it would garner me much drama. But you may do it if you wish. It's disappointing, yes, and the tone and tenor of the last answer I got surprised me. What a pity you didn't run for arbcom, Mast. Bishonen | talk16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
P.S., institutional memory note: after Jimbo blocked me in 2009 and I took him to RFAR, I was promised a note in my own block log, both by Jimbo and by some arbs. It fell through the cracks, and I never bothered to pursue it, because I actually think my log looks better without it. :-) This situation is pretty different. Bishonen | talk16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
Hah. I'm unelectable, I would think, and in any case I pity the people on ArbCom. At this point, I have more editing and admining experience than pretty much anyone on ArbCom (as do you), which makes it hard to have patience with them when they're off-base. I think I'd last about a month on the Committee, and every proposed remedy I'd write would be along the lines of "XXX is admonished to get a fucking clue", or "XXX is reminded that while there are causes in life worth fighting for tooth-and-nail, the capitalization of the first t in (T|T)he Beatles is not one of them". As to your block log... heh. Much more interesting than mine. MastCellTalk18:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got a boast about my block log in a (sort of) userbox on my page. Feel free to adapt it for yourself, but it would look a bit pathetic. "This user has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for one minute". Hey, Bishzilla was admonished once, for an admin action they didn't like. (Not kidding. She was once an admin, and was admonished by arbcom.) Would you do that to a user with an atomic deathray? Good job she was in a mellow mood that day. Bishonen | talk18:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
Well, possibly... I don't see any disruption, though. Are those edits similar to things you've seen Jakeleereed add? If they are, you may want to start an SPI. Sorry, but I don't see this as an obvious duck, and the IP is nothing like the one he used before (208.54.4.246). I admit I'm naive about open proxies and the like. Bishonen | talk19:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
The edits are not particularly disruptive, no, but they are to the same suite of articles that JLR edited earlier, and the writing style etc. appears to me to be him. Starting an SPI would be a waste of time because CUs won't connect an account to an IP, but I'm not going to press the issue. I'll let you know if the IP starts the Vitaphone/Technicolor thing. BMK (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Editing now as 2.75.239.135 -- almost certainly an open proxy, it's from Khazakstan -- and re-inserting Vitaphone. BMK (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Mo problem. Just to note: the IP JLR used immediately after you blocked him, 208.54.4.246, was located in California. The two IPs here -- which from behavioral evidence are certainly him -- are both from Kazakhstan, which is why I believe they're probably open proxies. BMK (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've taken some good advice now. Blocked Jakeleereed for two weeks for block evasion, and the two IP socks (or, of course, the two users in Khazakstan who took the sudden interest in Old Timey American films) for the same timespan. I appreciate your vigilance, BMK. Bishonen | talk19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
Ola Rollén is a rather prominent business leader. ([389][390][391]). Don't bother to undelete if the article is crap and the original author is unwilling to improve it (I have no interest in doing it), but this kind of deletion can probably be very unmotivating for a new user. --Hegvald (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The article was just "Swedish industrialist and businessman. President & C.E.O. for Hexagon AB since April 2000. Born on the 28th April 1965.", no source offered, and I noted that Swedish Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Rollén. I did google before I deleted, and there were a lot of non-RS hits — I guess I got discouraged and gave up before I came to VA and SvD. Those are pretty good sources, thanks. I still kind of doubt venture capitalists often become "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". I mean, Marcus Wallenberg did. If you check out Category:Swedish business executives and Category: Swedish chief executives, it's not quite the same, is it? (I'm far from sure we ought to have Mathias Eklöf, but that's for another day.) Anyway, I do take your point. I'll write to the author and suggest he mention Rollén in the article Hexagon AB. (He's not mentioned there now, nor as far as I can see on Hexagon's own site. One of those "Vara men icke synas" guys?) And/or work up more of an article in his own space, and read WP:Notability (People) to see if he thinks he can defend it. Thanks for getting in touch, Hegvald, I appreciate it. Bishonen | talk07:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
It's wonderful, I want Writ Keeper to marry me. But caution in its use is advised, and it does bloat up one's contribs. I'm thinking of letting one of my socks use it instead of me. They quite like having lots of contribs; I don't. Bishonen | talk18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
edits...and collab
hi, I saw your comment on my Talk page. Thanks for your consideration to this matter. But in case you don't see my response...check this out. Jezz has been on the article talk page, accusing and insulting. Also what do you think about this? Something no one else that I ever encountered on Wikipedia in my life. Jezz actually removed whole chunks of sentences from my comment on the Talk page, that he didn't like said about him, which was in response to insulting stuff he wrote about ME on the very same talk page. He undid part of my comment on the talk page. In total violation of Wikipedia guidelines. So he can write disrespectful negative things about someone on a talk page, accusing and abusing, but God forbid someone responds and says anything negative about him??!! (And yes, wrongly putting additional jabs on my own talk page, beyond just a "3RR warning". But a hypocritical "I'll report you if you say not nice things about my on the article talk page" comment, though he has said VERY insulting things about me on the article talk page. Can dish out but can't take it. I do NOT have this same issue with the Doug Weller and the other contributor there, you'll notice.) But he removed whole sentences of my comment on the talk page, that he didn't like. Unbelievable. He has glaring double standards and incivility and bad faith attitudes and violations. (Also, I am careful not to violate 3RR. And I've been discussing copiously, and this editor says I have ignored "Bold Revert Discuss" when that's all I've been doing for hours.) Please check out the stuff on the article TALK page. Not just edits and edit comments. Thanks. Regards.... ) Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention on posting on Gabby Merger's talk again, but I'm concerned about the large number of personal attacks expressed there even after they were blocked for exactly that. While I can overlook all the rants about what a horrible person I am, I found this unacceptable "The other editor Tgeorgescu has actually come over to my side to a large degree now (if you notice on the article talk page), and Jezz is after him now, and arguing with him." I'm certainly not after anyone, nor do I have even the slightest argument with Tgeorgescu. A civil exchange where we agree on most points, as can be seen on the talk page. These are my comments to Tgeorgescu [392], [393], just to show how much Gabby Merger misrepresents them by saying we argue and I'm after Tgeorgescu. Such outright lies with the sole purpose of stirring conflict I find unacceptable even on one's own talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Right. But people do vent when they're blocked, and it has to go very far before I, at least, will penalize them for it. Now that I've warned her and told her talkpage access can be removed, I will remove tpa if there's more. But feel free to ask another admin. Bishonen | talk11:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC).
Sure, I agree and don't really mind the venting, it's the lies about a non-existing conflict I found over the top. I fully see your point. Jeppiz (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen, I'm sorry to be writing this, and even though it's a past matter, and I'm engaged in discussion and civil discourse in the article talk page since last night, even with disagreements, etc, but I could not defend myself on here days ago, to Jeppiz's charge that I was "lying"...as he conveniently put only two links, of the exchange of him and Tgeorgescu, as if that's all he said to Tgeorgescue on that article talk page, when it wasn't...and dishonestly and conveniently omit stuff like this here:
"Tgeorgescu, I agree with that view but then it should be presented as a faith-based view. The current version, including yours, present it as an academic disagreement, and that is inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)"
That's really all I was referring to. If I chose wording that was too strong about "come after" or "argue" then my apologies, but I simply meant that Jeppiz was now disagreeing with Tgeorgescu's mods etc, because it still showed something that Jeppiz didn't like and didn't want. When I said "arguing with him" and "after him" those are just expressions, that for some reason Jeppiz got all hyper and upset about, and over-sensitive to, unnecessarily. There's no question that Jeppiz did not like Tgeorgescu's edits and overall version the other day, and made it clear. But funny how Jeppiz (again) conveniently did not put that link, to show disagreement. But put only two links that didn't show what I was referring to. So who is "lying" then?
He didn't put that third link, to show precisely what I was talking about. I would never deliberately "lie" and say that there was an "argument" (at least in a sense) between two editors if there was nothing but lovey-dovey congeniality and agreement. I'm NOT like that. Jeppiz was saying I deliberately lied and misled, which is in itself a personal attack and uncivil bad faith assumptions. But accusing bad faith is what Jeppiz has done with me basically from the beginning, on this, which I don't appreciate. And his own lack of honesty and forth-rightness, in reporting everything to you here, on this matter, matches the Egyptian habit of suppressing unflattering information too. (lol...a little joke, sorry). But seriously, I was not (obviously) referring to the two comments (linked) that Jeppiz put on here. But to this link here. Again, sorry for the trouble, but this was kind of a loose end from the other night, that I did not have the chance to counter or defend on. Thanks for your consideration. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Gabby Merger, you need to tone down the rudeness of your discourse or you'll soon be blocked again. It's as if you don't see it. Do you really not see the difference between Jeppiz calling Tgeorgescu's edit "inaccurate" (and civilly explaining why), and you talking about Jeppiz doing things "dishonestly and conveniently"? Talking about his "lack of honesty and forth-rightness"? The first is a comment (a polite comment) by Jeppiz on edits by Tgeorgescu. The second is a rude, bad-faith-assuming and baseless disparagement by you of Jeppiz's integrity. I don't know whether you "deliberately lied and misled"; I only know that either you lied and misled, or you wrote terribly fast and expressed yourself really, really badly. Please think before you press save. And you're a poor excuse for an apologizer, too, with the comment If I chose wording that was too strong about "come after" or "argue" then my apologies, but I simply meant that Jeppiz was now disagreeing with Tgeorgescu's mods etc, because it still showed something that Jeppiz didn't like and didn't want. When I said "arguing with him" and "after him" those are just expressions, that for some reason Jeppiz got all hyper and upset about, and over-sensitive to, unnecessarily. You use the word "apologies" about your phrasing and then segue into blaming Jeppiz for getting all hyper and upset and over-sensitive, because "those are just expressions". Yeah, everything on Wikipedia except the images is "just expressions", it's a text-based site. Please look after your expressions; those expressions of yours were indeed quite misleading. (Who were you 'apologizing' to, anyway? Me? This is my page; who else are you talking to? Try to apologize to the right person in a proper manner, if you want to apologize.) Honestly, every time you try to make out that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other between you an Jeppiz, you dig your hole deeper. You should drop the stick, because it's tripping you up. Please don't write so fast, don't write so much, don't repeat yourself, don't write stream of consciousness. Try to imagine that you're somebody else and look at your post above and try to think what impression it would make on you. And really, let it go. Bishonen | talk14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
That's why I said in my previous comment: "If I chose wording that was too strong about "come after" or "argue" then my apologies", but it's true that Jeppiz left a link out which showed what I meant (and I was only trying to inform you of that today), and also that he mis-understood and IMO over-reacted a bit (as even you the other night were kind of saying to him in a way), and he definitely assumed bad faith, and accused me of deliberately lying. But that apology was directed to Jeppiz too, for him to perhaps see on this talk page. But I was simply making the point now in that comment that Jeppiz did NOT put that other link, you notice. Not sure why you don't (at the very least) get or concede my point here on that. He didn't put everything, but put the very most flattering exchange. Not the "your version is inaccurate" comment. He put two links above in his comment the other day, correct? Did he put the link to which I'm specifically referring when I said the word "arguing with"? No, he didn't. He conveniently (for whatever reason) left that specific exchange out of his comment the other day. And that's all I was trying to say here today. Sir, really, I simply was notifying you of what I meant, sincerely, and I was polite in my last comment here. I'm not saying that he and Tgeorgescu had some horrible blow-out. But that he was "arguing" with him, in general terms, but I do concede that my wording the other night was not the best, or could be mis-construed. Hence my apology today. But I was showing what specifically I meant. That's all. He gets to say I'm lying and all kinds of negativity, I say something in my defense, that there was convenient omission, and I simply point it out, and you threaten to block me again, say I'm digging deeper hole, etc etc, and accuse me of "personal attacks". (As far as "drop stick" and "dead horse", again, I never got the chance the other night to counter-balance what Jeppiz displayed here, because you blocked me, so I wasn't able to. I never had the chance to defend myself on this here or to present what I meant.)
You didn't even know about that other exchange, it seems, which is the thing I meant the other day by "arguing". Again, it was not a blow-out that he had with him, I understand (so my wording the other night should have been more careful), but simply a disagreement, simply because the other editor left stuff on the article that Jeppiz was insistent should not be there no matter how modified or NPOV it was. But I simply informed you of it today. Just to let you know, so you wouldn't be thinking that I actually intentionally "lied" or that I was only going by the two links that he put on the comment the other night. No way was I referring to that really, obviously. I was simply telling you what I meant here today, Bishonen. But look what happens. And it's really discouraging, to be honest...instead of appreciating it, you basically blast me because I pointed it out, talk condescendingly to me, and that I supposedly didn't apologize enough to him or you, or don't say everything correctly (according to you) in the right order, in everything. He left that link out. Why exactly? It seemed convenient. And by doing that it didn't show what I was referring to.
That was my only point to you today. I was simply trying to let you know, sincerely, what I was referring to, and how I did not deliberately "lie" like he said I did. That was it. I have a right to defend myself against HIS charges and bad-faith negativity. I'm not perfect, I know, but it was not quite what he was saying either. Those two links he put obviously was NOT what I was talking about. (Also, sorry for some repetition here...) I did not "lie" when I said that he was arguing with the other editor. I put the comment, as to what I was specifically referring, which shows obvious disagreement. He never put that link. That was my only point. But don't worry, I'm not gonna personally attack anyone...as that's not my goal. I was just giving more info on the matter here, from the other night. But let me ask you. Was it right that Jeppiz left that crucial link out the other night? Which shows the point I was making about "arguing" with the other editor? That was ok to do? To put only two links in, that showed nothing of what I meant the other day (albeit saying not in the best way, which I apologized for more than once, to both you and him.) It seems it doesn't matter to you really. I showed you what I meant, that's all, so that there'd be no misunderstanding or mis-notions perhaps. So that's that. I won't try anymore. Again, sir, sorry for the trouble. (And sorry for this very long comment, but I felt some thoroughness was warranted, and don't worry...if I do comment again to you, it won't be nearly as long.) Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I hope it won't be nearly as long. You use far, far, far too many words and repeat yourself ad nauseam. That could have been put in three lines at most. It doesn't much matter on my page, I'll archive it soon, but you are bloating up Talk:The Exodus to the point of making it unusable. Do you see the people complaining about that there? Please try to be more concise. I've already asked you once. To answer your question: yes, in my opinion it was perfectly all right that Jeppiz mentioned only two links, not three, and I don't see anything "crucial" about the third as I have already said: it was civil discussion. The way you make such a meal of it is absurd. And you might stop calling me sir. Everybody's not a man (I'm not, for example), so please don't assume. Bishonen | talk16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
I agree that it was "civil", though still a disagreement that was occurring, and not all "I agree with you I agree with you" as Jeppiz by his two sole links was trying to give the impression of. Not a blow-out or bad at all, of course, but it was still (in a sense), at least the beginnings, of an "argument" (in the broad sense)...and disagreement, and that was the one in particular I meant, and what was left out (for some reason) in Jeppiz's recounting above, a couple of days ago. He called Tgeorgescu's "version inaccurate", even though it was arguably well-done, well-toned, carefully crafted, NPOV, very sourced and informative, and that's all I meant, the other day, though not wording it as carefully as precisely as clearly or moderately as I should have (which I already admitted). And as you showed understanding yourself that being blocked for a couple of days, and the tension, makes a person write not always carefully or calmly or 100% accurately. But it was NOT all totally agreement between those two editors the other day, (and even now in a way, from what I see), as Tgeorgescu was conceding at least a little bit my edit points etc. That's basically it. Also, sorry about the "sir" thing. I didn't know. Anyway, thank you and happy editing. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This is just a shout out in case an issue arises that I want to prevent. CrazyAces is placing material that is already clearly mentioned in the article above about the player facing racism, but went forward and put the material back without reason. I removed it once again with my point thoroughly said in the reverts, but I know he'll call me out on edit-warring if I need to do it again. Could you just tell him to avoid another discretion? Thanks and sorry for bringing something related to CA up again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your comments on Gabby Merger's Talk page, so I thought I would also draw your attention to this discussion, starting from here. Though I have frequently disagreed with Gabby in the past, she sought to draw me into her dispute with Jeppiz, continued the 'discussion' after I clearly indicated I was not interested in continuing, and then finished with a 'reminder' about my 'typical hasty arrogance', my "horrendous attitude", my "cold attitude" and how my "brain and biases won't allow" me to be 'nice' except "Maybe only with fellow anti-JWs, or anti-Bible types, and atheists perhaps". If you think any of my comments in the discussion were not appropriate, please let me know. This is not a specific request for admin action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Your typical hasty arrogance? Hmm. I'll take a look. Gabby knows now, or should know, that she's not allowed to attack people. Bishonen | talk14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
I'm fine, thanks — the recent stuff will do me. I have posted a final warning on Gabby's page. In an attempt to fix the {{hat}} business, I tried to add a {{hab}} to close the hat, but that only made everything worse, presumably because there are other hats on the page. Groan. I don't really feel like spending the best years of my life straightening it out, especially considering I don't even know what kind of hatting she was trying to achieve, and may merely disoblige her if I try to help. So now my final warning post is invisible on the page along with everything else ... I hope she reads it through the history. I suppose my kind talkpage stalkers wouldn't like to help? But please note I don't guarantee you'll get any thanks from the user. Bishonen | talk15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. Yeah, there was one {{hat}} nested inside another. I think she saw a 'hatted' section on my Talk page and decided to do the same, but maybe didn't realise you have to {{hab}} them. I had some trouble following Gabby's reationale of deleting two large seemingly arbitrary blocks of discussion and then hatting other large chunks, but I shall leave that for her to sort out. After the recent rollercoaster of, essentially, 'I don't like you, but I want your opinion, and I still don't like you', I'm a bit worn out trying to work with her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you shouldn't try. That's definitely my advice. I understand you may edit the same pages and their article talkpages, but if I were you I really wouldn't encourage her to come to your page any more, or post on hers. Bishonen | talk09:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC).
I've deliberately stayed out of any contact with the user for days, hoping it would lead to tensions cooling down. Unfortunately the user continues making their WP activity mostly about me by the discussion this afternoon at Jeffro77's talk page. [400]. Their continued posting at Jeffro77's talk page after Jeffo77 has told them repeatedly to stay away follows the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bish I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on my ANI report [401] that I feel was not dealt with properly and was closed unfairly. I took alot of abuse on that ANI that I feel was wrong and unacceptable. I'm not asking you to comment on ANI, I'm asking for feedback on what you think and how you feel on it because I really do not understand it at all. Thank you. Cadencool18:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
A thorough review of the history of that section, and the comments related to it elsewhere, would probably be reasonable if you are to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Bish is a trusted admin who is fair and does her job properly. You have no need to worry. BTW could you please stop following me around John and stop commenting on my ANI report? I do not like it. Cadencool18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Bish its very hard to do that when the same crap from yesterday has continued in to today. And Gerda thanks for that link. It was interesting. Cadencool19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in the DYK hook on the talk, which I kept on my talk. Every time I look at your talk, I think you look like that pictured person ;) - I have a cat instead - also crying out, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
For crying out loud: now we can use a Bach cantata also, and a template. The cat returned. I made my appearance Jimbo's talk, with this
Bishonen, why would my revision to Benjamin Genocchio be reverted when the content is factual, reliably referenced and an improvement to the stub that previously existed? Other editors could improve upon those statements which could be more encyclopedic in tone while leaving a more informative article in place. Really appreciate your time and thoughts here. Penelope1114 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a lot to ask of other editors that they follow you around and tweak your additions on the page itself. And so, instead, they revert. I can understand that. I mean, you realize they're not being paid for their work. Like several other people, I've been urging you to follow best practice and propose changes on the talkpage, and then discuss them there. I haven't seen you respond to this suggestion, so I'll try to demonstrate with an example why the necessary discussion can't be carried out via edit summaries (and absolutely not via reverts back and forth); it needs to be hammered out on talk.
Here's one point: it's not only a matter of style, but of proportion. In how great detail should facts and opinions be covered? As an example, I'm concerned about the section you called "International focus and art criticism".[402] I don't doubt that Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” or that “making art is one of the final arenas where there’s true freedom of expression". He's said it in interviews, these are quotes. But should they be reported in his Wikipedia bio? Not in my opinion. Also, when you describe these views, you often do it as it were from inside Genocchio's head — "Genocchio’s art evaluation process begins with his belief that" — "When Genocchio critiques a work of art, he considers", etc. As opposed to "Genocchio has said that his art evaluation process begins with his belief that “artwork can channel the spiritual, challenge the mind and stimulate the senses,” "Genocchgio has decribed.." etc. The sources are reliable, for statements that Genocchio has made in them, but interviews in, say The Weekend Australian, a lifestyle magazine, don't exactly tend to show the notability of such self-descriptions. In my opinion. I would remove the second and third paragraph in that section altogether. (As well as change the "meaningless-variation" artsy word "penned" in the first.) Please present your overhaul a section at a time on the talkpage. Also, it's better to put more general discussion on the talkpage too. I mean, you are absolutely welcome on my page, but the question you have asked me would actually go better on article talk. For more eyes. I think I'll go there now and put a link to our interchange. Bishonen | talk08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC).
Penelope, BMK may not have realized you were asking for somebody else to make the changes. I suggest you ask him to please make the change he proposes — point out that you don't want to, because of COI — and also prompt him (and others) to assess your other suggestions. For the next time you propose changes: if you use the {{request edit}} template — click and take a look at it — people will know where they are from the start. Just paste {{Request edit}} above your request. Using the template will also add your request to the Category:Requested edits, which is useful, because some editors patrol that category, and will be drawn to the page to assess your proposed edit. (So I'm told, at least.) Bishonen | talk10:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC).
Thanks so much Bishonen. BMK went ahead and made the edits as I believe you saw which is great. Last question for a while, I promise... Should I propose changes first and begin a discussion and then use the {{request edit}} you speak of above to request that the edit actually be made after a consensus has been reached on the talk page or do I use the template from the get-go? I think you are saying to use it when I propose a change right away but I'd just like to confirm. Thank you again in advance for helping me become a better contributor. Penelope1114 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(May I? I've got Bishonen's talk page on my watch list.) If the article talk page is active, it's probably enough to just propose the changes there and leave it up to the regulars to discuss and decide. If there's little or no recent activity on the talk page, you might as well use {{request edit}} when you post your proposed changes. The point is to try to minimise your use of the volunteers who patrol the {{request edit}} category - they've got a lot on their plate and will likely be less familiar with the topic than the talk page regulars. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Anthony. I think it's probably good for the regulars too if Penelope uses the template right away — then they'll see at a glance what it is. Also Talk:Benjamin Genocchio isn't a particularly lively page. A request doesn't become any more formal because you use the template, Penelope — it can be discussed afterwards. Once there's a consensus, you don't have to use any formalities to ask for your changes to be added; somebody who was part of the consensus will surely just add them. Consensus may be a bit of a highfalutin term for such a low-traffic page anyway — the changes will be added if there aren't any objections. Thanks for your help, BMK. Bishonen | talk09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC).
No problem. I don't know how often I'll be around the article in the future, though. If you post something and get no response after a while, feel free to contact me on my talk page. BMK (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, the article isn't very well watched, I guess, Penelope. But you see BMK's offer just above — why not profit from it, and post on his page? Also, quite a few people watch this page, mine. Dear talkpage stalkers, would somebody like to help? Incidentally, Penelope, it may seem counterintuitive to abandon this thread, but the fact is, most people only look at the bottom of a page for new stuff. So the next time you have a question for me, it might be more effective to create a new section at the bottom. Bishonen | talk18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
Creating a new thread is more likely to happen when the old one is archived. Cluebot and Lowercase sigmabot are looking to earn their pay btw. —SpacemanSpiff19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No bots ripping my beautiful page apart! No! I like a good long TOC. Which reminds me... time to reinstall the hardworking hamsters next to the TOC. They earn their pay! Bishonen | talk19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
Hey Bish - how the hell ya doin? Miss talkin to ya. How's the kids? Little ankle biter still got those sharp teeth? How's the honorable monster? You talked to Floz? . he ok? I saw Giano poked his head in a while back - but I was so busy that I didn't talk to him myself. Anyway - just wanted to drop by and say hey. hugs. — Ched : ? 05:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cheddie! Florence is good in himself, just pissed off with Wikipedia. I'm thinking of sending the anklebiter to visit some editors I've been, uh, "interacting" with recently. Or Bishzilla, but she tends to be too mellow for my purposes these days. Bishonen | talk12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions alert
Hi Bishonen. I wonder: is user:Joshua Jonathan being investigated on the same grounds?
I mean, I am denouncing harassment coming from this user only to I find that is me who is being investigated. All of a sudden editors appear on his support even using awkward statements and being so hasty, taking decisions in very little time, when the issue at stake is a complicated one. Mauna22 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Investigated? What makes you think you're being investigated? Perhaps you didn't notice the line at the top of my discretionary sanctions alert: This message ... does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Italics and bolding in the original. But what I see on your page after you got the alert forces me to warn you: the more you assume bad faith, and the more you follow the lead of User:Dseer, who I have just blocked for the personal attacks on your page, the more likely you are to be sanctioned, up to and including a topic ban or an indefinite block. As for Joshua Jonathan, he's well aware of the discretionary sanctions in the area in question. Your talk, here and on WP:ANI, of "harassment" by him is absurd. Please click on the policy links in this message, you will find them informative. Bishonen | talk09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Hi! I didn´t mean harassment towards me myself but rather to the article at stake.
"What makes you think you're being investigated?" This [403]
You protested, with reference to my discretionary sanctions alert, against being investigated. It turns out you're referring to a checkuser investigation (not performed by me) of your account, mentioned at a sockpuppet investigation that's nothing to do with me. Ask Bbb23 about the investigation of your account, if you want to ask somebody. The reason seems clear to me from the SPI, but if it's confusing to you, you should ask. I've no idea why you bring that here.
Only people are capable of being harassed, not objects such as articles. Look up the word, or, as Joshua Jonathan has already suggested, read the harassment policy.
Your understanding about removing comments is mistaken. You may remove any posts you like from your own talkpage, see WP:REMOVED. But I haven't been blaming you for Dseer's comments, or suggesting you ought to remove them — have I? No, and I'm not now. I was warning you against following his lead. That was because you explicitly expressed appreciation of his words,[404] with reference to a post that included the word "Nazi" (thrown at specific editors). He has been blocked for that post. I'm glad to hear you now sounding as if you've had second thoughts about throwing in your lot with Dseer. I'm sorry you got such poor advice from him; that wasn't your fault. Bishonen | talk12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
? How old are you..? No, don't tell me, I don't really want to know. But why reply at all if that's the best you've got? Silence is golden. Bishonen | talk14:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC).
Obvious from this unproductive dialogue why I am retiring my user account after 10 years and why I warned Mauna about consequences. If we responded that way we would be sanctioned so it makes the point for me; thanks. Exactly why I abandon my account unapologetic and unmoved by being "lucky" there were not more severe sanctions for blowing the whistle. I knew the consequences going in. Silence here IS golden. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source academically anyway. Goodbye. Dseer (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I came here to say the same thing. The discussion was hardly out of hand, and as far as I know there have been no specific allegations backed by evidence against anyone. We shouldn't forbid IP editors from contributing just because a topic is semi-controversial, especially on a relatively backwoods page that is specifically there for discussion of the subject. To put a finer point on it, there's not really anything to disrupt. —Torchiesttalkedits15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This and this are pure acts of vindictiveness and mean-spiritness. I will not joust with him. The fact that he even approaches me or has anything to do with my actions (under the guise of protecting the encyclopedia) is pure crap. As I say on my User page: "I don't vibrate at that frequency". Buster Seven Talk06:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Buster, I'm afraid Collect is right about Rainey Bennett. Nearly the whole paragraph "Education" is lifted word-for-word from the source. That's not "a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline", see WP:COPYVIO. You have to rewrite that paragraph from scratch using your own words. Further, you have used very specific expressions from other sources in other places in the article, such as "modernist-leaning" and "whirlwind exhibition". Those are brief quotations, but they show such "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language"[405] that you must credit them as direct quotes from the sources, with quotation marks and naming the source in the text, if you want to use them. Of course that would get pretty cumbersome, so it's better IMO to simply not use those "creative" expression. There are other similar issues wrt other sources, so please consider these things carefully when you rewrite the article, and stay away from the language of the sources. Good luck.
I also think Collect's note on Talk:Richard Haines is reasonable. Look at the similarities, where this extract is practically identical with text in the Marion Times article: "Amongst his many murals was one of the more colorful in Iowa Farming, which he painted for the Cresco, Iowa post office in 1937. In it, he harkened back to his days in Marion and produced a scene depicting the farm and two generations of family that had lived there. It shows horses, cows, pigs, chickens, and family members performing chores as his mother reads a letter just delivered by the postal service." Also it's not attributed: you haven't given the newspaper article as a source. That needs to be put right, too. (I realize the newspaper may in its turn have been ripping off some other source, that you have cited. But whatever the source, somebody surely owns the copyright, and you can't use the text without rewriting it.) I know there's history between you and Collect, but no, I wouldn't call that stalking. The "User contributions" button is there for a reason. Once somebody has spotted a copyright violation, it's reasonable for them take a look at the author's other articles — because it may be suspected that the author is not well aware of how much text they're allowed to quote or semi-quote, and how it's supposed be attributed. P.S. I got an edit conflict, and haven't looked at your latest addition. But you can probably work it out yourself, considering what I have said about the rest. I have to go now. Bishonen | talk07:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
I tried to finally create some article on a subject I enjoy. I may have made some errors but....Collect is a stalker and a trouble maker. You know it and I know it. I Quit. Buster Seven Talk08:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please take a break and come back refreshed, Buster. You're a valuable editor, and I'm sure you know your contributions are appreciated. As for Stan and Ollie, Roxy, it's certainly a concern if they hypnotize people so much they're unable to post here. ;-) There's an animated gif of Bishzilla radiating her atomic deathray (or possibly throwing up, it's a bit hard to tell); perhaps I should put that in the edit notice instead. I like to frighten people. Bishonen | talk09:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
If there is any "stalking" it is shown by a vast array of posts on the ArbCom case against an editor whose last "interaction" was a vote on an RfA - which failed. I arrived at the pages here as a result of their connection to Philately - so any claim of "stalking" is not only silly, it is a personal affront. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Try looking at [407] and tell me that an editor writing almost an entire article from an uncited article is proper ... or that such turns of phrase as "His parents, Fred and Hattie, were pioneer farmers at the turn of the century and Richard began sketching scenes of cows and the countryside as a child. ", and "Amongst these is one of the most colorful of murals in Iowa, which he painted for the Cresco Post Office in 1937. In it, he harkened back to his days in Marion and produced a scene depicting the farm and two generations of family that had lived there. It shows a joyous site of horses, cows, pigs, and chickens, as family members perform chores and his mother reads a letter just delivered by the postal service." etc. would strike you as normal edits on Wikipedia where the same wording is found in a source ... Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
NE Ent, I explained the situation and the policy to Buster, who I'm sure will understand it when he's less upset. How about you, did you look at the texts and the sources in question (easy to find for an experienced editor if he takes the time), and do you genuinely disagree with me? Or do you just genuinely think trollish nitpicking is helpful? Collect, I agree with you, and you needn't rise to purely silly comments. I'm going to close this thread now. Bishonen | talk07:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
I did not look at the texts and I do not disagree with you -- based on prior interaction, if you said it was a copyvio, the probability that you're correct is sufficiently high I don't consider it a good use of my time to independently evaluate the situation; if I disagreed with your viewpoint, I'd state so explicitly and I'd be much more likely to being discussing it on the article talk page than here. It was merely meant as an observation on language, nothing more. NE Ent14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sock
Hello, Bish. Would you mind taking care of Arsalan Kiani(talk·contribs·count)? It's an obvious sock of someone, making unsourced edits promoting Punjabi on multiple articles related to Pakistan, and pasting lots of totally frivolous warnings on my user page in retalation for being reverted, clearly showing that they're not a new user (I don't know who the master is yet, though, since there are several masters doing similar things). They have received up to and including a level-4 for unsourced POV, and have been reported to AIV, but nothing has happened there for a while. Thomas.W talk09:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've taken care of AK for now. I'll take a look later. The editing is so, hm, special, that it ought to be possible to relate it to a master. This, for example. Have either of you guys seen your suspects doing anything like that? And Space, could you ask Materialscientist, please? I'm on my way out. Bishonen | talk09:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
Arsalan Kiani edits through Opera Mini, which is a kind of proxy, thus CU data are inconclusive. Kmrhistory didn't use Opera Mini (in the past). Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, why worry about whose sock he is, when he's so eminently WP:NOTHERE under his own steam? I've amended the block accordingly. And now I am going out. Bishonen | talk10:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC).
LOL, the first was great with my Saturday breakfast — where's my Beluga, though? And who's the "Seal" character referred to, besides being a well-known expert on the international hospitality industry? Seal (musician)? As for our article, how could you have the heart to remove the entire elegance of an enchanting past? (As you and I know, sometimes it just feels good to have a block button.) Were you tempted to add the Guardian feature as a reference? Seriously, it's perfectly informative. It could replace this, for instance. Bishonen | talk07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
Perhaps "Seal", whoever he or she is, is to international hospitality what Paris Hilton is to music. ¶ I know, I know, I removed from the article all that was beautiful. This gave me the sads; perhaps I'll recover and, as you suggest, replace crap sources with good ones. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Holy intercourse. Incidentally, although a couple of the blogs I follow refer to Florida as variations on "America's flaccid appendage", it wasn't till I saw a map of Jutland in this context that I noticed how the peninsula, er, jutted. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Problems
Hi Bishonen. I just wan't to apologize for putting a problem in your plate, but this IP (who's hard to track since he/she keeps changing IP addresses) there is a dispute between me an the IP in the article of Pound sterling as seen in the edit history, the IP didn't agree with me at first, and he was right, but now that I point out to a given source by the IP that the new edit doesn't have anything in regards to a misleading data (something about a 40% data), he thinks I'm morphing the source to my POV and posted a complain here in the Administrator notice board. I tried looking for third parties, but none respond. (N0n3up (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
I never said anything about getting involved in the ANI, just a third party. But like I said, pretend this doesn't exist... please... sorry.. bye. (N0n3up (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC))
In Dec of 2014, Editor Carptrash and I created List of United States post office murals and started to fill it with info and images (when available). While creating the list and doing research, etc. we realized that we were by-passing a lot of interesting information that might come in handy for future articles about the muralists. So, later that same month we created User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists and User:Buster7/The List - Men Artists and used them as a file drawer of sorts for names and information and sources and whatever was interesting. Most of it was via cut-n-paste in a random, quick, rather loose system of fact gathering from varied sources. Over time I created about 7-8 articles using one of the two Lists as my starting point. Just the other day I decided to start creating more muralist articles and made a personal vow to do one a day.
I regretfully admit that I should have been more careful and concerned to paraphrase and use my own words. But I was eager to create content. I kind of knew I was stretching the copyright issue and plagiarism but I figured the articles were about remote individuals; they would be “out of the way” , unseen, and I could get them into namespace and edit them as time allowed. I didn't expect much traffic (if any) at the articles so I thought I would create them, with what I had, and I could fine tune them later.
And then, behold, surprise of all surprises, an old nemesis shows up and dis-credits my content creation. I won’t get into the long history that he and I have but I challenge any editor to compare our general history everywhere on WP. Compare our talk pages over the last 6-7 years. See how many complaints come my way compared to his. I stay out of trouble: he searches it out.
Somewhere, twice, you say that he was right. O! How it pains me to admit that that may be correct, technically. But, what could have been a warm cuddly moment of olive branch entwining and a future of peaceful co-existence was sacrificed for a never-before seen and rarely used template; used against a veteran editor of long and exemplary service to the encyclopedia and the WP community. That would be me. I won’t stay retired. I love WP too much. Also, my wife has started to add jobs to the honey-do list now that I have extra hours in the day. Buster Seven Talk14:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you find yourself drawn (and pushed, by your wife) back, Buster7. As you probably recollect, I'm aware of the long history, and I hope I've been supportive when that was called for. But I won't play favorites, and I don't think Collect did anything improper in this context. Best regards to Buster3.5. Bishonen | talk15:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC).
Being named a person of interest here I think I will weigh in. My guidelines are, if I cut-and-paste then I just use quotes and reference where it came from. One thing I am always trying to do with articles is to use a variety of sources anyway, so I don't view this as being a problem. We need those articles so don't despair. Carptrash (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, a little later today, after I've been to get the groceries. It'll involve the dreaded history merge, since there has been a little further editing at the new location, so I need to gird up my loins first. Bishonen | talk09:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
Never to get in the way of a good loin gird - no rush. The speedy deletion of the new article was declined because of the article history and if further action is to be taken the history will be important.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't seem to remember this trick very well.. I made a bit of a meal of it, and misspelled the name in several ways. But finally the history goes back to 2010. Now let's take a look at the talkpage… Bishonen | talk11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
I don't seem able to stop the talkpage redirecting to itself. It's funny in a way, but not... a good thing. Talkpage stalkers please help!! Bishonen | talk11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
Sorry, now we're both doing it — I'll stop! I'll leave it completely to you. Just let me know if you need some version deleted. Bishonen | talk11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
Yes I should have left it alone. In any case the talk page is not that important. Let me deal with that and I will send you any deletion requests.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I will not. I've lost my nerve. And I thought that was what I did before? Oh well, one more time on the roundabouts, it's not as if I've got any more face to lose. Why do they give the admin tools to these fumblers? Bishonen | talk11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
Look at the history of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar. It so happened that Abecedare and I came across the same set of disruptive moves at around the same time and edit-conflicted in moving this article back and in the process deleted the article and its entire history and made it a redirect to itself. Luckily Bgwhite or his bot figured it out and got me to fix it. Talk pages are ok to mess with after that. —SpacemanSpiff13:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Paul Theodore Arlt demonstrates what appears to be specific and deliberate plagiarism - using a Washington Post source in the first place, grabbing more than 150 words from it, and then not citing it at all. [408] is the initial edit. There is a pattern here - but I was perfectly happy to be cordial until the editor then accused me of "plagiarism" for quoting his post about being a sleuth seeking information about me personally, as though it were the same problem as this plagiarism (far worse than a mere copyright violation) of taking a source, quoting it extensively, and then not citing it whatsoever. With warm regards, and noting you will see others also note that using 150+ words from a source which you used in the first place, and then did not cite as required by Wikipedia policies and US law is a major problem for an editor. Collect (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, [409] is the initial edit of the article while it was under construction @ User:Buster7/Paul Arlt. Yes, it was a direct copy and paste from the Washington Post Obit which I then chiseled down during construction. It was a starting point. Yes, its quite possible I may have inadvertently used some few of the many thousands of words available in the Obit and then forgot to state it as a reference. Buster Seven Talk14:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
In fact, though, you quite specifically removed all mention of your primary source.[410] I believe that is the essence of the offence. At this point, I am becoming unwilling to accept "accident" or "inadvertently" or "some few" words where your edit summary was simply "copy edit." The more I look, the worse the offence appears. Collect (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you stop looking. You see a devil behind every tree. My mistake is how I construct articles. My method creates pitfalls that I tumble into. Buster Seven Talk15:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Then I suggest you no longer routinely delete the actual source you use - especially when you simply lift entire colorful sentences. I think you might not appreciate just how important the issue of plagiarism is to Wikipedia. Copyright is not an area which tolerates accidental "pitfalls" nor do I "see a devil behind every tree." Your problem is that your area of editing overlapped an incidental area I looked at - nothing more. But when you shout that "he is out to get me" it is also possible that you created your own "pitfall". If we wish to retain editors, we should also be an example for them. Warm regards. Collect (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Collect, you've made your point. The plagiarism/copyvio issues are real and it was appropriate to bring them to attention, but the way you're going about it is petty, mean-spirited, and distasteful, and smacks of using the issue as leverage to bludgeon someone you dislike. Bishonen told you the same thing in the last thread you opened here, although she used nicer language. You're even doing your typical thing where you post aspersions on your talkpage, an unproductive habit which has gotten you in trouble in the past. If you identify copyvio or plagiarism issues, then you can either edit the article directly to remove them, or bring them to another editor's attention. If you think there is a deeper issue with Buster7's editing, then you can raise it in the appropriate venues, for example WP:AN/I (if you believe it requires immediate administrative attention). Otherwise, let people with less of an axe to grind handle the issue. The copyvios need to be fixed, but this whole exercise on your part has a very distasteful and vindictive feel to it. MastCellTalk16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Amazing. I note I have found plagiarism by others as well. You might have had half a point had I not found other plagiarism/copyright violations, but as it is, you appear to be much more interested in following my edits than I have ever been in following yours. Am I on your watchlist perchance? And I fins your characterization of my varied posts as "aspersions" to be an aspersion in itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I find your description of my description of your aspersions as an aspersion to be a third-order aspersion! What a productive thought process. But to be clear, you're not on my "watchlist" and I literally have no idea what you've been up to since your most recent bout of ArbCom sanctions. You posted to Bishonen's talkpage, which is on my watchlist, and I responded. (In contrast, I don't believe for a moment that you just happened upon Buster7's edits, but it's not really important either way). Fix the problem, or ask someone else to do it, but at this point you're just being gratuitously mean-spirited. MastCellTalk17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a first-order aspersion...the mere presence of MONGO casts a very dark shadow. Other editors usually recoil in disgust when MONGO appears. Everyone better play nice or BISHZILLA is probably going to open up a giant can of whoop ass! --MONGO22:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Protection for the Dino Charge pages due to persistant vandalism?
Thanks, good point, please stop edit conflicting me! Yes, I saw him on WP:AIV, that's what got my attention. It's been semi-protected for three months before, so I've done the same. I'll see if maybe I can do a range block as well. Bishonen | talk07:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Hahha, sorry. I get nervous when writing about stuff like this and I try to make my points as concise as possible, which means editing. My bad. I'll be more careful in the future! Also, there's some vandalism going on WP:DRN from the same user as well.Kitsunelaine (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It happens! I appreciate your report. The range is much too big to block, so I've tried doing 4 very small rangeblocks for a week (they're static IPs). He may well find his way out of those, though. I'll see if DRN can work as a honeypot! Bishonen | talk07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bish! It's a tale of a horrendously spammy draft for a fabulously trendy British hairstylist, Daniel Galvin, who "did" the hair colour of Princess Diana and Twiggy, amongst others. It turns out (surprise, surprise) that the creator of that little beauty, works for Galvin's PR agent and has:
claimed on two separate occasions that she was not Mr. Galvin but two different people, the owner of the PR agency (Jessica Psalia) and one of Psalia's employees (Sonia Lall).
I cannot get a straight answer out of her/them as to whether the password to this account has been shared. If it has, it's going to have to be blocked. If not, at the very least there has to be a name change. I told her/them that I'd ask an administrator to sort it out. Can you help?
Well, I've blocked that account, with a nursery word about paid editing and terms of use in the block notice, for when they create new account/s. Are you saying they don't understand that editing when they have Galvin as a client is paid editing, by definition ? 'Strordinary. Bishonen | talk16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
So, I looked at your article. Where did all the renowneds and famouses and classics go? It's nice and clean, but it's not going to shock the general public into reconsidering hair colour as something creative and expressive, is it? Boring! Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Bishonen | talk16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
You're a brick for sorting that out, Bish. Yep. They did indeed claim that this was not paid editing because it was "no profit" and done of their own... er... free will. [412]. As for my article, I too am quite impressed with its utter boring-ness. It's a veritable masterpiece of boring-ness, if I do say so myself. Needless to say, both Sam Sailor and I have it on our permanent watchlists in case "someone" tries to make it more "interesting" . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll just discreetly add something about his hair colour vision and what it did for women all over, when you guys aren't looking. Hi, Sam. Bishonen | talk17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Oh will you now? In that case, you might want to add that he is "the man responsible for some 32 million Japanese women now colouring their hair". Damned impressive that! There are lots more fab suggestions at User:Colourguru2015. (Another of his minions?) Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement-eating chameleon in a feeding frenzy. Zap zap!
No suggestions on that userpage any more. Explain to me why I haven't speedied the draft you link to, again? It's just as much an advertisement. But it sounded like Sam was in favour of letting it (and the other drafts) languish until G13 gets them..? I don't mind either way. They're drafts, and the article exists. Bishonen | talk19:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Ah, but you missed Draft:Daniel Galvin, Bish. These folk have been very busy. That one could definitely be deleted as G11. As to the latest (very slightly toned down) version, Draft:Daniel Galvin (2), in the past drafts have been deleted as G11 (blatant advert), but I gather they have to be very blatant. If you think it is, just zap it. I'm not sure if A10 (existing article on same subject) applies to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who the master was. I do know a user who calls themselves User:Justlattersandnumbers has been around the block. Actually I meant to refer to both socking and advertising, but for some reason the opportunity to add a second reason to the deletion summary didn't come up (as it normally does). Feel free to recreate the article and delete it per G11 instead, if you think that would be useful. I have warned the IP who removed the speedy template, btw. I think it's very obvious that it's yet another incarnation of the same person. (And I doubt their butt is actually in Morocco.) Bishonen | talk20:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Deletion was fine. Would have been useful to know who Justlattersandnumbers was in case they pop up again. As it stands, it's a username block so they're free to create a new account. --NeilNtalk to me20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's hard to tell — the real user, Justlettersandnumbers, chases vandals and promoters quite a bit, so I couldn't guess who it is he has disobliged to the point of impersonation. Anyway, it's a "hard" username block, so I don't think they're any more free to create another account than people are after any block — are they? If I've understood the concept of a hard vs a soft block, which isn't necessarily the case. But I don't want to fall foul of WP:BEANS, so I'll say no more. Bishonen | talk21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
Rosie
There is currently a question at the reference desks "Italian gesture" where an esteemed colleague brought up the notion that Rosie might be implying a bit more than "We can do it" in her gesture ... As Rosie is one of very few images currently illuminating your page, I thought I might point this out. And say hello. (And look at Laurel & Hardy). And wish you a happy Halloween in advance! ---Sluzzelintalk21:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Lovely sound effect with the gesture in I vitelloni! I'll always imagine that now, whenever I catch sight of Rosie on my page. You know, I once got a similar image from Soviet Russia on my page (as a barnstar?), long long ago. An older image, I'm pretty sure — from the twenties. Not sure if there was a gesture… it's got to be in my archives somewhere. Bishonen | talk22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC).
There's an at-least-adequate summary of previous incarnations at Jobcentre Plus. Remembering the hassle Eric and PoD had trying to write Workhouse, I'd be extremely reluctant to touch anything similar with a barge-pole, especially since in the current climate anyone writing on such things will have a flock of assorted Corbynistas ranting about your being a lackey of the neoliberal war machine for not explaining that unemployment is part of the global plot hatched up by rootless cosmopolitans in Wall Street and Brussels (I was accused of using offensive language for using the term "lower classes" recently), right-wing cranks accusing you of being a commie agent trying to legitimise government control of what should rightly be left to the open market, and nationalists of all flavours accusing you of being an English/European (delete as appropriate) stooge for failing to mention some arcane difference between how they operated in Carlisle, Carmarthen, Carstairs and Carrickfergus. ‑ iridescent15:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought "rootless cosmopolitans" (especially combined with "Wall Street") was antisemitic code, Iridescent? Either I've got that wrong, or you're suggesting the "Corbynistas" are worried about a jewish plot for world domination … really? Perhaps I've totally misunderstood the subtleties, or I'm simply fifty eighty years out of date with the phrases. Bishonen | talk16:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
This one!. Only friendly helpful gestures depicted! And at the time we translated the bottom text (in grey) as "Say NO to the oppression and Babbittry of the household work!" (meanwhile changed) ---Sluzzelintalk16:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI - I have renominated User:Kajit paron for speedy deletion: like you I believe this was perfectly ok as a user page but IMO this subsequent version is not; it was previously deleted when it was the same or broadly the same as the latter. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, quite, Richard. I've reverted the additions to the userpage and in doing so removed the speedy again... and replied on the talkpage. I hope he gets it. Bishonen | talk19:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
Thank you, Ed, that's great. A much-needed tool for the overworked editors and admins in this area. Are you going to log it at WP:AC/DSL under India-Pakistan, page-level sanctions? Compare Zad's note under Gamergate. Bishonen | talk08:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I'm afraid I'm not looking up those Google searches, CrazyAces489. Please convince me that you really have significant new info — stuff that's not already there — and I'll put it in your userspace for a limited time — say a week.
I'm not going to encourage you to sock, though. What do you know about the IPs who supported keeping the article in the AfD? Do you have any theory about how they happened to find it? Bishonen | talk20:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
Well, the consensus at the AfD was that he doesn't. I notice you don't answer my question about the IPs, btw. If you won't answer, I've got to assume they were all you. :-( Anyway, I'd rather not put it into your space, especially since you say a shorter period is no good to you. But I don't mind e-mailing you the last version. You can get the information and sources from that. Most conveniently if you paste it into Wikipedia and use preview to look at it (without saving, please). OK, I'll do that.
..sigh. No, I guess I won't. I can't, since you don't have wikimail enabled. That really is not convenient. Oh well. If you'll give me a temporary e-mail address in some way, I'll send you the article. That's the best I can do. Bishonen | talk22:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
I'm sorry, CA, I missed where you said that about the 173 IP. I apologize. (But I don't much like to see that that IP removed the AfD template. You're an experienced editor, you know not to pull stuff like that.) I've mailed you the last version of the article. Good luck. Bishonen | talk08:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
The AFD of an article i wrote drew me back in. When did an IP remove an AFD template? I will see what I can do with the new information. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do not mock! it is important for other editors to know the education and experience of those to whom they speak and address. While some lesser educated Japanese people may experience difficulties when conversing with me in Japanese; this is largely due to a lack of concentration on their part. Indeed. the manager and staff at my new favourite restarant are all very complementary about my Japanese and have no problems taking my orders. My aunt and I will both be displaying our accomplishments for all to see. Not to do so, is false modesty. Giano(talk)15:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Mock? Never — I celebrate you as a Renaissance man. But do I have to do it two metres down in the right-hand corner of your page? @RexxS: You see the problem, Dino? Bishonen | talk16:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
Yes Chère, there were two opening box-tops, but only one closing box-bottom. Speaking of the Renaissance, did you know I was born 500 years to the day after Leonardo da Vinci? Spooky, huh. I like his Excellency's new reastaurant in Knightsbridge, but it has a sign on the door
No, no, no, no. I think that's quite horrid and possibly full of bookworms and suchlike, we had a lot of ghastly Egyptian type things in the library at Scrotum Towers brought back by my father in the 1920's (he was very close to dear Lord Carnavon) - nasty little cats and things. They upset my darling Pekes, so I burnt the lot of them for hygiene reasons. Oh yes, My Dear, I am back too - one can't play bridge during the winter, especially as all foreigners cheat. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Lady Catherine, prepare to be shocked: I've been credibly informed that your nephew, whom you (deluded no doubt by affection and family pride) have so often referred to as "a saint", is actually a misogynist who ought to be "topic-banned" from anything to do with gender. A woman-hater! Please have a nursery word with him. And topic ban him from something or other, perhaps? Bishonen | talk22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
Aspire to be little 'shonen? Ha, unlikely. See better box below! (Little Rex perhaps line up all the boxes horizontally? Too much whitespace on page!) bishzillaROARR!!22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
This editor would like to be more like User:Bishzilla, but it is beyond their reach.
Closure box at WT:AE regarding submissions from IPs
Please see this closure where I boxed up the WT:AE thread for which you implemented the result. Yesterday an IP filed a new request at AE and couldn't recall whether IPs were allowed to post. Now it appears that you and a few other people settled the matter in September. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, with some arb input, and after a well-attended ANI discussion. I note the IP is edit warring to reinsert it; I went to warn them, but I see you already did. Also, it looks kind of reasonable to remove that request no matter who filed it; it's hardly a proper AE request. Bishonen | talk22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC).
@Kitsunelaine: Without looking at Reddit the usual rule would be don't feed the trolls. It's conceivable that a new and naive user might contact someone at another website in order to discuss some point; in that case, you might post at the user's talk page here to say that if they have a question, please ask at the article talk page [or your talk if it's specific to you]. However, it's much more likely that contact at Reddit is a first step in a campaign. I would not reply because each reply is another step into a trap. It's less clear what should be done if someone posts hostility at another website. If you don't mind linking your Wikipedia account to Reddit, you might post once at the Wikipedia user's talk and ask them if they wrote the comment [link here]. Don't offer an opinion about the comment, you merely want to determine the authenticity of the comment's author. The fundamental point is that replying to someone on a campaign is always counter-productive—your aim is to be as boring as possible. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please ask before you edit, Capankajsmilyo![414][415] Are you talking about removing the whole section "In Mahabharata"? That's 75% of the article! (Mind you, I suspect all those other subsections aren't actually meant to be part of "In Mahabharata", but the way the headers are currently formatted, that's how they're presented.) @SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare: Could you guys take a look, please? It doesn't look very religious to me, more like mythical history, so I think it would be OK as far as the ban is concerned. But please wait for input from Space or Abece first. Bishonen | talk15:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
Anything related to Mahabharata, Ramayana etc would be covered under Indian religions as they are religious works. Whether this merits an exception from the ban itself, I'd suggest not at this point as this sort of thing is where the original problem started. If the content is bad, I'm sure there are other editors like Kautilya3 or Cpt.a.haddock who edit these areas and are bound to identify problems sooner or later. —SpacemanSpiff15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Bishonen. The edits you mentioned were on Kalinga (India) which is a historical kingdom and I think is not covered in my ban (Please correct me if I am wrong). Further I asked, when clarity faded for Mahabharata. As regards SpacemanSpiff comment, well (no offence meant) they haven't been able to do so till now. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, with that information, I'm with SpacemanSpiff: you need to leave Mahabharata alone, in all articles, Capankajsmilyo. I do remember, indeed, that it was the uncertain, shimmering, vague borderland between myth and religion that started all the trouble where you're concerned. Bishonen | talk15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles! You really know how to get my goat, you bashi-bazouk! :P--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I have received another warning, please help me in getting clarification. In BLP articles, do we have to state the whole lineage upto great grandfather? Also are tools like checklinks act with POV? Please help. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)17:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Bish, this is related to my warning to Capankajsmilyo. He was soapboxing at Narendra Modi and was warned for it (not by me) and then he went to the political opponent Rahul Gandhi to make pointy edits by removing contextual content and tag bombing with cn tags (because sentences and not phrases are cited!) and stuff like that. I left a warning that this sort of editing is likely to get the scope of the topic ban expanded or editing privileges revoked altogether.—SpacemanSpiff17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo, at the Teahouse, I noticed you were trying to gather some support against SpacemanSpiff's, in particular his latest warning on your page. That hasn't profited you any, as the uninvolved users replying there didn't see any "bullying" (as your section header called it). I don't either. Look, I've seen you do good work, for instance at Faridabad — your tagging and removal of tourist-y promotion there drew me in to do some further cleanup — why can't you stick with that kind of useful editing? Your questions above are highly pointy. You merely make yourself look foolish with a question like "In BLP articles, do we have to state the whole lineage up to great grandfather?" — as if you had been removing any old greatgrandfather — and not giving me any context, so I have to dig out that you were talking about removing Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru from the Rahul Gandhi article! Please don't try to tell me you're not aware of the importance his descent from them has had for his political career, or of the relevance of that descent in his biography.[428] Also I don't altogether understand your question "are tools like checklinks act with POV?" — it's strangely put, and of course a tool isn't POV in itself — it's always about how it's used. As for "discussing" an edit — yes, that should be done on article talk — but a warning should be placed on yours, to make sure you see it. I'm frankly having trouble seeing any of your questions as asked in good faith; they're tendentious in themselves. In short, I agree completely with SpacemanSpiff that you're editing tendentiously and cruising for a wider topic ban or a block. You should listen to him. Bishonen | talk20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC).
May I request both of you to go a bit easy on Capankajsmilyo this time? Yes, he was soapboxing at Talk:Narendra Modi, but he wasn't the only one doing it. The edits he did to Rahul Gandhi may be pointy, but again they may not be, because he was doing similar edits at a whole lot of other pages. Pankaj, please take the warning seriously and be very cautious in editing topics that may be influenced by your political views.
Bishonen, can I ask you to keep an eye on Narendra Modi and its talk page? There is some new critical material coming and the fan club is not able to take it objectively. I think most other admins I know think they are involved with the topic and so can't intervene. But the discussions are likely to get quite inflamed. So, a watchful eye would be welcome. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as Kautilya pointed out, Pankaj was not the only one doing soapboxing at Talk:Narendra Modi, I was also blamed for the same, though I usually don't do these things, still if there was any kind of soapboxing I will take care next time. As far as Pankaj is concerned, he is relatively new and as of now he is like any other typical new user who usually joins Wikipedia to push own political/social/religious views. I think he may need more time to settle because as per my experience same kind of users usually convert themselves to more sensible user once they spend some more time on Wikipedia. Kautilya said to "take it easy" on Pankaj because "he is not the only one", it is an argument like WP:Other stuff exists. There are many very experienced editors on India-Pakistan arena who are involved in some kind of POV pushing. Bishonen can keep many other India-Pakistan conflict related pages on their watchlist and should endorse discretionary sanctions for POV pushers (whatever their experience) on this arena (including me obviously). POV pushing by experienced editors usually goes unnoticed but new editors usually becomes victim of bite. Pankaj needs more improvement, he should keep his political views aside while editing Wikipedia if he want to become nice editor someday. --Human3015TALK23:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
"New" can only go so far Human, a lot of leeway has been provided here, but pointy editing on BLPs is not something that can be easily excused. Context matters, you may also have indulged in soapboxing (I'm not saying you did or didn't -- just a follow on from your statement) but that did not affect your editing behavior elsewhere. And to Kautilya's point, the deadlink thing (which is what was being done on multiple articles) by itself is fine and welcome -- it's all that surrounded it. In this case, the behavior has already been sanctioned in one area, if instead of being used as an opportunity to learn and modify that behavior the user indulges in similar behavior elsewhere then that is problematic. There are always going to be good-faith errors and some leeway provided for some sort of behavioral issues, but not again and again because it's new to a particular article or topic. —SpacemanSpiff05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I should probably have linked to the recent Teahouse discussion in my post above, for the benefit of the watchers. Did you see it? Note the header Capankajsmilyo gave it, "Admin Bully", and the advice from an uninvolved admin, RockMagnetist. As for watching Narendra Modi, I do realize that uninvolved admins are thin on the ground there, since the knowledgeable and interested admins understandably tend to dive in and edit. This is something of a systemic problem on Wikipedia, with only the ignorant and less-than-interested admins left able to perform admin actions on a topic. ;-( This is my case here. I'm frankly not sure how much use I'd be on Narendra Modi, and also I have a lot on my plate. But feel free to alert me if you see major problems. Bishonen | talk10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen, I didn't see the teahouse pose earlier. Now that I have, it seems to be a good sign that Pankaj is going to the teahouse to get another opinion. Some people have to go through a painful learning process. What can I say? I will try to say a few words to him on his talk page. As for the Narendra Modi page, all that I would need is to remind people about policy periodically. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Now that you've seen Caps' posts at the Teahouse you think they're a good sign, really? In that case I have no more to say to you on the subject. Bishonen | talk14:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
Well, I think Caps did feel "bullied," rightly or wrongly. I see his reaction as immaturity rather than malice. That is my reading of it anyway, having seen his work pretty much every day. How much of it can be tolerated is up to you folks to decide. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Pizza - Mafia (Mandolino, Spaghetti, etc. :-))
Ciao page stalker :-) did you understand what happened on my talk page about mafia? I found myself in the middle of a dispute about pronunciations of Italian words on Wikipedia, but at the end I was overwhelmed by the Northern Cyprus issue... :-) I tried to answer to the ip on his talk page, but I disappeared. Who was right, who was wrong there? (Except myself, of course :-)). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: Who was right or wrong about putting in the pronunciation for those well-known loanwords, you mean? I don't know. I can't face researching it. But if there's consensus about it, as I believe you said somewhere, then the consensus is right. (Sorry to hear you disappeared — what happened?) Bishonen | talk13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bish! I meant, he, the ip, disappeared :-). About this issue I asked an opinion at the manual of style TP, but, as it is often the case, it was rather inconclusive... Alex2006 (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I agree that's a very unusual edit summary. I think you really know what's wrong with it, and what reply to make — indeed, the user in question has been here since 2010, so I rather think they know it, too. But I've posted on their page. Bishonen | talk13:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
I will freely admit to being a grumpy old lady ... so rather than posting what I want to post (which was a bit like Eric Corbett's more intemperate replies), I thought it best to have some outside input before spewing swear words all over. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk13:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Gabby Merger
I have been involved in one of the articles in which Gabby Merger and Jeffro77 were at odds, and I was shocked to find that the reason Gabby stopped taking part in the talk page was because he/she was blocked. I didn't see any "personal attacks" against Jeffro by Gabby Merger, but I did see plenty of ad hominem comments by Jeffro against Gabby. I would ask that you please reconsider the decision to block Gabby Merger. GBRV (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
A longer block was an appropriate response to a long-term problem of personal attacks, accusations, edit-warring by Gabby Merger, coupled by her utter contempt for the concept of collaboration. This editor's last series of absurdly long, rambling rants shows she just doesn't understand what is wrong with her approach. And God, this Laurel and Hardy gif is irritating. BlackCab (TALK) 08:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure it's a coincidence that GBRV supports Gabby Merger's position in the editing dispute at The Exodus. In any case, GBRV is possibly unaware of not only Gabby Merger's history of POV edits but also Gabby Merger's long-winded badgering. For example, in the period 22-23 September alone, Gabby Merger made eighty edits to my User Talk page, all the while claiming that I was 'hounding' her. (For clarity: I made a total of 14 edits to my Talk page in the same period; nearly half of them were requesting that Gabby Merger cease commenting at my Talk page, and some were in response to other editors.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The great and good User:WritKeeper created a script for semiprotecting everything with a particular prefix with one click, at a time when I was getting my userspace vandalized a lot. I just tried to semi yours, but the script didn't seem to work this time. :-( What happen, Writ? Anyway, I've done the three you requested by hand. No doubt they'll move on… but I have to go now, for my part. Bishonen | talk11:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
Hi Bishonen,
Thank you for reverting personal attacks on my user and user talk pages by this user. He personally attacked me because i reverted a vandalism edit by his IP address on Tanki Online. He then created an account just so he could attack my pages. I have also told another admin, Anna Frodesiak who helped me a couple of weeks ago, but since you restored my pages, i decided to tell you about it. Could you please protect both my pages or do i have to send a request for that?
No no, I'll protect them for a couple of weeks (semiprotect), no problem. Since that was how it was, I've blocked the account (on second thoughts; as you probably saw, I warned them at first) indefinitely, and the IP for a few days. Bishonen | talk20:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
Last time I had seen the request to topic ban Swamiblue and had read your comment.[429] Knowing that you had previously told that you can topic ban disruptive editors from the subject if they have been alerted with DS notice, I wanted to know if you are still willing to take review such requests for DS sanctions. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, D4iNa4, I don't think I can. I don't understand the area well enough. Actually I never said I could topic ban them, but that they could be topic banned. By an admin who understands the ins and outs of it — not me. In my WP:AN post that you link to, I was giving advice, and pointing out that I had handed out a DS notice. When users have had the notice, an uninvolved admin can topic ban them if they're being disruptive. I suggest you request review at WP:AE. Sorry to be so useless. Bishonen | talk17:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC).
Margaret Sanger
Slow motion edit war with anti-birth control activists, trying to plant argument that birth control is racist. Centers on minimizing importance of web du bois. Page needs semi-protection or full. Thanks for watching. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Bish, was your assertion that you could understand Shouroff because you understand Danish a joke? I know many Danes who do not understand Danish. OP Curious. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, I must have been unclear; I was trying to say that I could not understand Shourov, and that I understood him even worse because I can read his Danish sources. (He used the sources in an incomprehensible way.) That wasn't a joke — a bit of hyperbole, maybe — I probably don't actually understand him worse than the people who can't read Danish; just, it doesn't help any. So you know Danes who do not understand Danish? Well, I have in fact heard it's increasingly the case that Danes themselves don't understand their own spoken language, which is getting more and more blurred. I'm not Danish, and I sure as hell don't understand what they say, but I can read the language. I come from one of those other little countries up north. Bishonen | talk05:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
Er dette en dobbelt, tredobbelt eller endnu mere kompliceret negation? I don't understand Danish too, but I'm Dutch. Some people don't understand Dutch either. But there are some nice Dutch people who do understand Dutch Danish. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Joshua, did you know Scandinavian and Dutch people share a unique bond, or so I'm told? Apparently we're the only people in the world who like salty liquorice — salmiak. (I love it passionately.) I read somewhere on the internet a theory by an American, who had been so appalled when he tasted the stuff that he decided we must be eating it out of masochism, based on our puritan heritage. His idea was that we're ashamed of enjoying sweets, so we ruin the nice liquorice with salt (ammonium chloride), and only then will our conscience allow us to eat it. Clever fellow. Bishonen | talk12:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
Salmiak? Ja, lekker! Americans play American football, instead of soccer, and they have Santa Claus, instead of Sinterklaas; how can we take them seriously in matters like this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually I've just thought of a similar theory of my own to explain the existence of white chocolate: people who're ashamed of enjoying chocolate ruin it by removing the cocoa. The resulting dreary concoction, consisting only of sugar and fat, seems to be very popular in the U.S. It keeps popping up in their cake and cookie recipes. If it wasn't for the internet, we wouldn't know about these strange things. Bishonen | talk15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
Norway? No longer part of Sweden? Of all the nerve! Unleash Bishzilla and those other Jurassic creatures of War to put an immediate end to this comeuppance and arrogant action by those lesser Norwegians! They will either resubmit to their natural subservience or perish in a rain of fire!--MONGO18:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A language is a dialect with an own army and navy. I.e. it's purely political. The difference between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish is less than the difference between various dialects of German, as anyone who has had the chance to compare southern highland German (for example Bavarian) and northern lowland German knows. Thomas.W talk18:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure, except they're kinda long and multisyllabic, and have funny characters in them, so they might as well be Urgic for all most folks on here are concerned. No, if you want to demonstrate mutual intelligibility you want to go with something short and that most people here can relate to. Like Øl, Øl, and Öl. I wonder though, what can be read into the fact—in anthropological terms, obviously—that of the Scandinavian Wikipedias, only nowiki and fiwiki have an entry for that one (apparently) entirely unforgivable word that is the proximate cause of the latest bout of drama on here, and on fiwiki that article is even featured content (GA-equivalent I believe). I feel certain something quite profound about folkesjela may be understood by careful study of this phenomenon. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I notice that you deleted the user page and blocked the above user. Apparently, it was just the tip of the iceberg, as I've found a whole lot of similar accounts/pages, where "Abbas Nurrollahi Diba" -- as he or she signs him/herself -- creates a new account (seemingly as a title) and posts yet another rambling bit of discourse. I think I've found a couple of dozen, going back a year. --Calton | Talk09:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The aforementioned user pages I have come across, so far, in no particular order:
Wow. Great work, Calton. I see User:JohnCD has recently written advice on a few of the talkpages, such as User talk:Neuropseudology and User talk:Rabbi Abraham Herhsberg, explaining about userpages and articles, and he has also moved the essays to draftspace. I've just pointed John to your list here. Maybe WP:AN is the place for this, to try to do something for the future. And about the others probably left out there that you haven't come across... Bishonen | talk11:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
Note the timestamps: the lovely comment at 21:37 UTC, the block at 21:38. Under ideal circumstances my banhammer is pretty fast these days (thank Twinkle). Bishonen | talk21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
Yes...the speed and violence of that block made me think it was done by Bishzilla...it was thunderous!--MONGO22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
ha ha ha, yes, I get a steady stream of love letters from that guy now that he's out of jail. How to begin to describe the subtlety and range of delicate feeling expressed. How do I love thee? let me count the sockpuppets ... Antandrus(talk)22:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hehe. Do they all begin with "Antbrain"? @MONGO: Oh, right, I should tip off Bishzilla about Twinkle. You see how slow she was here. If she'd had Twinkle, the little arb would surely have been reduced to a crisp before I could intervene. Bishonen | talk22:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
I think giving Bishzilla block ability as your avatar makes more sense than ever giving MONGO block capabilities...just my thinking.--MONGO22:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey hey!
I have already seen the new version of Template:Uw-spamublock used by seven different administrators. (There may be more, for all I know.) None of them has objected to the change. If I had known it would be so completely uncontroversial, I would have done it years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I suppose, with Twinkle, people may tend to use existing templates without question, as if they were the stone tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. I know I did, when I started looking at the new user creation log not long ago and became hooked on blocking promotional usernames. (Only if they've posted something objectionable — if it's just the name, a block seems unnecessarily blunt, IMO.) But after a while I became worried about the templates. Thanks for composing this one — now we can all use your version! Bishonen | talk18:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC).
Hi! Hope you are doing well. An editor seems to really be impressing things upon my on my talk page re paid editing disclosures. I feel as though I am complying with ToU and the directions you have given me. When you have time, would you please give me your take on what they are asking me to do. Thank you so much! Penelope1114 (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Widefox, I wasn't aware of that. There do seem to be some contradictions in and between the policies and guidelines, and I hope the discussion is ironing them out; I'll try to get my head around it all as it affects Penelope. It may take a day or two, Penelope1114, sorry. In the meantime, please feel free to join that discussion. You don't, IMO, have any reason to mistrust the people there, even if they can occasionally sound impatient. Bishonen | talk07:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
I must add, that the integrity of my communication with Penelope1114 has been compromised, as detailed in the full-circle journey at Talk:PAID. Best I withdraw from discussion due to patience vs WP:PAYTALK. Widefox; talk09:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Bishonen, as always. The general nonacceptance I receive from the majority of editors due to my sometime paid research and suggestions make me hesitant to join a discussion about it. Thus far, the only editor who has acted on any of the suggestions I have made is BMK (a big thanks to him). Numerous editors are happy to advise/drill me on how they think I should disclose my paid suggestions. It feels like a bit of a witch hunt when I comply, even disclosing paid editing from before June 2014, am not a PR person, and yet have proposed edits to improve articles just sitting there with no discussion beginning. I really appreciate the time you are giving to me. Best Penelope1114 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Penelope1114 has been generally, but far from fully or without prompting, responsive to requests for disclosure. The matter that caught my attention was that she removed disclosures from her talk page as being 'no longer current'. I see she has fixed that now. A huge problem that I see looking at her talk page disclosures is she has added "Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor." to {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on Talk:Benjamin Genocchio and Talk:Melissa Chiu. An editor can not by by the definition of COI be independent and paid, Widefox has brought this up on her talk page.
Looking at the other articles she has disclosed; Stephen Messer (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer and Tad Martin (entrepreneur), I see she has not disclosed at all on the talk page as is required. In addition she has not disclosed anywhere the full "employer, client, affiliation" as required both bu WP:PAID and the ToU. This requirement has been explained to her many times. Proper disclosure is very easy {{paid}} and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} exist for a reason, they have all the fields needed for talk page and user page disclosures all that must be done is fill them out properly and the matter is closed.
@Penelope1114: your input would be valued in the discussion over at WP:PAID in particular it would be nice to get a paid editor's view on why not simply use the proper templates and disclose on your user and talk page. Why the resistance? I know paid editors can be treated poorly but paid editing is a huge problem here and disclosure is required and wiki-lawyering the minimum disclosure sets off alarm bells. JbhTalk16:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I too brought it up on her talk page, Jbhunley. My comments there received no reply or acknowledgement from Penelope1114. She hasn't removed that dishonest (yes, it's dishonest to claim to be "independent" when in fact you are editing for pay) claim from her paid editing declarations, nor has she added such declarations to the other pages she's created. Our terms of use require disclosure; but what's the remedy when the editor refuses to comply? As Widefox correctly points out, this is just a time sink for everyone; but only one person here is getting paid for her time. Bishonen, I can't imagine you want this to be thrashed out here – do you want to re-open the COIN discussion, for example, instead? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but since Penelope1114 came here because she trusts me, I'll take a shot (at last) at outlining my opinion here, and if that isn't effective, I suppose the COIN discussion had better be reopened. Penelope, quite frankly, you are being treated with suspicion because people get the impression you will only comply with the minimal absolute rules of the WMF's Terms of Use. You should comply with best practice (an important concept on this site): COI editors should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. Best Wikipedia practice is outlined in the policies and guidelines Widefox put on your talkpage. To summarize them: please disclose your affiliations, including the specific client involved for each article on a) your userpage (not your user talkpage) and b) on the talkpages of all the articles affected. WMF may theoretically be satisfied with either a or b, but it's surely clear by now that Wikipedia is not. And what do you have against it? How is it onerous?
Why do you call yourself "an independent editor"? Are you referring to the editing you do without being paid for it (if I understand you, that's mostly copyediting)? It does run the risk of being misleading. A statement about you being an "independent editor" should absolutely not appear on the talkpages of articles you are or have been paid to edit, such as Benjamin Genocchio. I don't even understand what it means there, because you're not independent in relation to those articles. Please remove it from those talkpages.
These things seem obvious to me, but your complaint that you make suggestions on talkpages and nobody responds is quite different; it's a problem that shouldn't be ignored. WP:COI states that it's best practice to only suggest edits on talk, but it doesn't say what you should do if the suggestions aren't answered. For instance, I see you suggested an update on Talk:Melissa Chiu on November 7, and your suggestion is still the last post on that talkpage. :-( In an ideal world, all articles would be well-watched, but the actual fact is that some are obscure, and nobody watches them, or nobody can spare the time and energy to respond. (People mostly edit Wikipedia as an unpaid hobby, so that happens quite a lot.) Now this is my opinion: provided you comply scrupulously with a) and b) above, and if nobody has responded to a talkpage suggestion within say 48 hours, then I think you should go ahead and make the edit. Indicate your COI status in a simple way in the edit summary, for instance with "See COI disclosure on talkpage". What do you say, guys? Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers, Jbhunley, and Widefox: is this reasonable? Bishonen | talk19:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
I disagree with the idea she should go ahead and make the edit after 'some time', in fact if she does so she will very rapidly end up back at COIN. It can be easily gamed and most articles for hire will have very few, if any, page watchers. What she should do and what COI editors are told to do, is fill out an {{edit request}}. The list of pages with edit requests is displayed at WP:COIN. If it is time critical she can post a message at COIN about the request.
While she may want to see action in a matter of days, she is the one getting paid not the ones assessing her requests. She should expect response times on the order of a week or so. If there is some critical matter @Penelope1114: is welcome to {{ping}} me {{ping|Jbhunley}} from the article talk page. My email notifications are on and, if I am able to, I will take a look at her {{edit request}}. JbhTalk20:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have filled out the paid coi template at Talk:Melissa Chiu properly as an example[430]. Note employer = 'who is paying you' and client = 'on whose behalf you are making edits'. If they are the same place the same name in both fields. Also, use first and last names. Do not add anything like 'to edit the article to be factually accurate' or 'independent editor'. That is all public-relations dross and meaningless. You already must edit the article in a factually accurate NPOV way; You already must follow Wikipedia's rules; and you are not independent. So saying those things is either redundant or false. In neither case should they be in a disclosure.
Please now go and place proper disclosures on the article talk pages. You also should, in my rather firm opinion, also simply fill out a {{paid}} on your User: page in the same way for each article. JbhTalk21:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
1. I refer to myself as an independent Wikipedia editor because I am self employed and have offered to help folks who wanted to see their articles improved but did not want to do so because of COI and/or did not know how to navigate Wikipedia. I am not in this as a PR person. I edit independently from those who hire me, notifying them the entire time that all edits or now, proposed edits will be made adhering to the guidelines that run Wikipedia. That meaning, I will do my best to adhere to strictly factual, highly referenced, NPOV edits, etc. Sometimes I fail and I appreciate especially how Bishonen and Jlan have pointed out where I can do better.
2. I thought I was complying by doing one of the following options as per ToU the options being, a statement on the user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. I disclosed my COI on the talk pages for Benjamin Genocchio and Melissa Chiu. The pages I wrote a while back Tad Martin (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer and Stephen Messer (entrepreneur) were written and disclosed on my talk page, as I now understand needs to be the main user page(!), from the beginning. Widefox, I was simply updating the format of my talk page and I think it looks much better. I am also happy to comply with best practices Bishonen, I only wanted your and others feedback on Widefox's check list.
3. I am happy to discuss the situation with Benjamin Genocchio and Melissa Chiu. They hired me to help improve their pages in a proper way. They themselves do not want to have anything to do with Wikipedia as per COI. They just hope to have factual information represented in their BLP articles instead of some nonfactual, damaging, potentially libelous sentences. The Reliable Sources Washington Post article written by gossip columnist Emily Heil is out there and is referenced currently on Melissa Chiu. A good example of why their articles need improvement can be seen in the Hirshhorn Museum section for Melissa Chiu. The section contains mostly negative references and does not provide much information about Chiu's position, the direction she is taking the museum, major curations, etc. That section does not offer a balanced POV.
(edit conflict) (with above) @Bish - It is because of edits like [432] which show the least possible compliance that people are continually posting on Penelope1114's talk page. She added the last name and left the disclosure saying "Penelope1114 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Benjamin Genocchio to help make this article factually accurate while adhering to the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor.". This stretches my AGF to the breaking point and I think it is past time she see that there is some teeth in our paid-coi policy and gets a bit of a time-out. JbhTalk22:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen makes a fair point about the possible wait time before requested edits are looked at (Widefox, I suspect that in practice it may often be a good deal more than a week). Though Category:Requested edits is not as over-loaded as I had expected to find it, requests (like everything else that needs doing round here) are handled by volunteers. They get handled when someone gets round to it; and anyway, what's the hurry?
My guess is that Bishonen's 48-hour wait idea would be unlikely to gain much support if it were proposed as a modification to our COI guidelines. It's one thing to say "you are strongly discouraged from editing articles where you have a COI", and quite another to say "you are strongly discouraged from editing articles where you have a COI – unless you wait a little while first". And unless the guidelines were radically changed, I believe I would in most cases revert such edits on sight. COI editors are discouraged from directly editing articles; but how? In practice there's only one way to discourage those edits, and that is to revert them.
Penelope1114 is a particular problem: her persistent failure to respond to advice is a massive waste of everyone's time; more seriously, the material she proposes for addition is poorly written and dubiously sourced (at Benjamin Genocchio I had to remove a BLP violation, unsourced material, and a Wikipedia mirror used as a ref, all added – entirely in good faith – at her request). Any request she makes should be examined with the greatest care – another timesink! I don't know when a paid editor crosses the line into being considered WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I note that Jbhunley seems to think it's been crossed here, and I'm inclined to agree. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Justlettersandnumbers, I have to agree she takes too much volunteer time. Penelope1114, I understand your explanation of why you call yourself "independent". But you should also understand that in the context of Wikipedia it's misleading: self-employed or not, you're still dependent on the people who pay you. (There's nothing to stop you from explaining about being self-employed on your userpage, but it should be a separate and really explanatory section.) You're not independent here. Please remove all statements where you call yourself "an independent editor". They're at best ambiguous and mysterious, and have no business at all on article talkpages. But I've already told you that. I'm flattered that you trust me, but I was hoping it would result in you taking my advice. I'm an unpaid volunteer too, and repeating this stuff is not the most fun I can have on Wikipedia. I now think I should give you the full version of the sentence from WP:COI I quoted above: COI editors should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously, and may be blocked if they cause disruption.. My italics. (BTW I'm going to bed now, it's night in my timezone. This had probably better be continued at WP:COIN, in fact. Bishonen | talk23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
Oh, I think I've got a better idea: let's have 'zilla keep the entire little committee in her pocket, and keep 'em in order. Perhaps consider adding special pocket annexe, or lean-to, with round table, for their cute deliberations. Without catflap — don't want 'em scarpering and running around the project! And very nice to see you on my page again Aunva, you've been quite a stranger. Bishonen | talk03:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC).
yeah, I kinda burned out, plus RL stuff, job, school, and herding cats on an Internet forum. I still hop on from time to time, make a few edirts, beat backa few vandals. -- Aunva6talk - contribs04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome in Victorian parlor, little clan! (As a delicate attention towards the little Confederate guerilla, Bishzilla uses American spelling today.)
Current and some past members of the arbitration committee looking rather dour and defensive about the prospect of Bishzilla joining their ranks. Image taken a few days ago in front of the Wikipedia Arbitration Courthouse in Pigs Knuckle, Alabama.--MONGO19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
[Pleased, Bishzilla sticks the cute little Hatfield clan in her pocket.] Sit in Victorian parlor, little Confederate guerilla! Hang out with Bigfoot, have some tea! [Bishzilla considers also inviting hoppity-hopsy arbcom version from Giano's page, but can't go there today — all girls banned! Giano may fear being tempted by Bishzilla sexiness!] bishzillaROARR!!19:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
Yep, sorry Sweatheart, you too are banned from my talk page. Apparently, I am a danger to womankind - I suppose it's a certain Latin charm and all those hours spent in the gym. Whatever, it seems it's entirely my fault that no women edit wikipedia (apart from you, of course, and about 4 million others). Therefore, I'm becoming a virtual cyber celibate, and then Wikipedia will suddenly blossom into a green garden of butterflies and pretty maidens editing. Oh vomit! It's just all too silly for words. Giano(talk)19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! What a stubborn character, and, with the earlier 208.54.4.246, what a nice blockable tiny range. I've blocked 208.54.4.192/24, which is slightly more than covers the two IPs we have so far, for a month; I really doubt anything useful is likely to come from it. Please let me know if it turns out more is needed. Bishonen | talk10:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
I'm sorry, I don't know. You probably know more about Indian editors than I do. Just pick somebody or -bodies with a good reputation. Bishonen | talk10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
An unintended grin
Hi Bish. I know you were just performing a normal admin duty but the thought that the mafia needs protection is a delightful irony. It gave me a chuckle and that is a good way to head into the weekend. I hope that yours is enjoyable. MarnetteD|Talk18:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I would not wish it on you, but if it was of your own choosing, then I would surely support it. (BTW - I like your heart better than the ribbon I chose. Very nice, but very sad.) Best always. (and my very best regards to the honorable Giano) — Ched : ? 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ched. Apparently they are looking to increase the number of womenfolk on the Arbcom, so you may as well have a go. They certainly need someone with some common sense and experience of writing here. Looking at some of the candidates so far, one's heart does not soar like a lark, but festers like a sore. Giano(talk)18:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
(Where's your ribbon, Ched?) ArbCom no, I'm not motivated. The disadvantages seem to outweigh the perks by a mile. But it's about time people started to ask, I must say! I get huffy if nobody asks! Also, the people in this thread would all be an adornment to the committee, but especially Anthony and Giano, because I do feel the committee needs a non-admin or two. Mind you, if you run and get elected, I expect you'd find yourselves forcibly adminned, because it's just impractical for an arb to not be able to see deleted pages and such. But that's something else — you could remain non-admins at heart. Come on, self-nom page is thataway! [Looking…] Hey, check it out, suddenly Drmies is on there, how cool is that! Drmies, be careful, you'll sweep the board, you know! Then what're you gonna do! Bishonen | talk20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
My days of hoping to be an Arb are long gone. Even if there were enough people to vote for me, I wouldn't trust the Foundation with my initials, lat alone my name and address. Have you seen the type of people they employ? Giano(talk)20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
[433] is my ribbon, but I'll likely replace that with yours. Giano - you don't have to even supply an address, or even a "real" name: See: here. I went through that "Phabricator" thing, and the most it did was require a valid email address. — Ched : ? 20:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I sent a copy of my driver's license (well, I borrowed a DL from a student who needed to pass a class) a couple of years ago, when I was gonna be a Trustee and get an expense account. So far no one has asked me for anything so I assume I'm still good. Giano, I think non-admins have to sent copies of two IDs, plus a stool sample of course. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that explains why so many people have been posting stool samples to Arbcom members this year. Oddly, they usually forgot to include the ID's... -- Euryalus (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You should not ban people for providing neutral, factual recitations of the salient points of the topic. Therefore, I request you unban me.
Bishonen, the lede paragraph which has been reverted to is entirely self-interested opinion, with not a single source cited. And it completely ignores the explicit factual findings of multiple courts- who are the legitimate triers of fact. Neither it is consensus, since I and others disagree with it, and have said so on the talk page.
There's no question here that Wikipedia is simply unaware of what the neutral and objective facts of this case are. I have provided them. With citations attached to my edit, and, additionally on the talk page, direct verbatim quotations. Rather, you are knowingly allowing a de facto public relations proxy with an ax to grind to suppress the findings of fact made by the South African courts. This is not to Wikipedia's credit. You should revert the fair, neutral, and salient edit which I provided, or, alternatively, you should delete the article entirely if you're unable to provide a factual/neutral article. But to allow an article titled "Murder of Anni Dewani" to function as a platform for a public relations manifesto is disgraceful.Lane99 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You have not been banned for misstating facts per se, but for warring to present them in the lede in an unbalanced way (in September[434][435] and again today[436]) that implies Shrien Dewani's guilt. Organizing facts in a certain manner to make a certain implication is not neutral, let alone "fair" or "salient" (well, I'm not sure about the "salient" part, because I'm unsure what you mean by the word). There has never been any question, in a court or out of it, of anybody else hiring the assassins, as you well know. See Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani. Your slow edit war to insert a lede that states it was a murder for hire, and thereby hints Shrien Dewani is guilty, after he has been found innocent in a court of law, is a BLP violation that could get the Wikimedia Foundation in hot water legally. Naturally the accusations about murder for hire should be mentioned in the body of the article, but placing them in the manner you have done in the lede gives them undue weight. In the two months since you first inserted your preferred lede (twice) you haven't made any progress that I can see towards getting consensus for it; and yet you inserted it again today, word for word, with the same edit summary. Therefore, I decline your request for an unban. Since this is an arbitration enforcement ban per this ArbCom decision, I suggest you appeal it at WP:AE. You can also appeal at WP:AN or WP:ARCA, if you prefer. Bishonen | talk18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, my edit of the lede paragraph is not unbalanced. It is a neutral summary of the salient facts of the topic. By "salient" I mean facts which are fundamental to an accurate understanding of the "Murder of Anni Dewani". It may be a fact that the victim's dress was fashioned from linen and silk. However that is not a salient fact. It is a trivial one and there is no justification for including it. The fact (and it is indeed a proven fact, as found by MULTIPLE courts, and not merely an "accusation") that Anni Hindocha was killed by a hired assassin carrying out a planned hit IS salient. And there is no justification for excluding this fact from an article which has any pretense to accuracy and balance. For clearly this goes directly to the "Five W's" (which, as Wikipedia will tell you, are the basic questions that MUST be answered for any story to be complete).
So it is the currently published article which is unbalanced and unduly weighted. As it handwaves away most of the relevant and salient findings of fact about the article's topic and resorts instead to opinion-based editorializing and rhetoric. Now, I'm sure no one would quibble were such to be contained in a publicity agent's spin-doctored press release. Everyone knows that's what press releases do. However that is not, as I understand it, what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do.
If Wikipedia is so worried that truthfully reporting the salient facts of a topic will get it sued, at worst you should just delete the article entirely rather than allow it to not only suppress those facts but, at the same, disseminate biased, self-serving opinions that are belied by the facts you are suppressing. It would be better if you told the truth in the article. If you're not willing to tell the truth, it would be better for Wikipedia to say nothing rather than lie by omission. Anni Hindocha and her family have suffered enough. You should not permit them to be further victimized by offering up Wikipedia as a platform for polemics and propaganda that ignore the South African courts findings of fact about the "Murder of Anni Dewani".Lane99 (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
My answer stands. You've done a good deal of ignoring yourself, such as my point about balance, due weight, and implication. It's been made to you several times before, on the article talkpage, and you simply don't seem willing to engage with it. For more eyes, please take your appeal to one of the boards I have indicated. There's little point in persisting here on my page. Bishonen | talk10:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, I addressed balance and due weight. I ignored "implication" because it's a absurd argument for a number of reasons. For brevity, I'll only mention one: something like "acquitted of the charges, even though he probably did it" would be implying guilt. OTOH, stating, as I did, someone was acquitted of charges due to insufficient evidence does NOT imply they were guilty of those charges. It's simply fairly reporting the facts. For that essentially precisely mirrors the wording the judge used in her judgment. Incidentally, many news outlets reported the decision in a manner similar to my offering.
The current article on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is exploiting Anni Dewani's name, and I find that unconscionable. Hopefully, I can get it corrected on one of the boards you introduced me to. If not, I'll be content that there is a record that the obvious biases in the article had been brought to Wikipedia's attention. One final question, and then I'll move on: assume- strictly hypothetically- that it were true that: a) multiple courts have explicitly found it is a fact that Anni Dewani's killing was a murder for hire which was staged to appear as a random carjacking in order to conceal the fact it was contract killing, b) no court has ever ruled or found as fact that it was NOT a contract killing. If (a) and (b), hypothetically, were true, are you willing to assert that the current "Murder of Anni Dewani" article is fair and balanced and written from an unbiased, neutral point of view?Lane99 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Lane99 How about including other salient facts in your little hypothetical? (c) The two key witnesses who told the "murder for hire" story in the S V Mngeni trial, turned out to be self confessed liars and repeat perjurers. Puts a very different complexion on the findings of that court. Renders those findings worthless, and in fact makes them no longer salient. That is why the later court (S V Dewani) explicitly excluded "murder for hire" when the judgement declared "It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences". There is no ambiguity there. The "murder for hire" story was not proven and was not regarded as factual by the court. If the court did not seee fit to ascribe credibility to the "murder for hire" claim, then why would Wikipedia present it differently? The effect would be to grossly mislead readers whilst implying that the crime was a contract killing. We know that this was not the case and that it was a robbery/kidnapping that got out of hand. Three of the four conspirators admitted as much in their initial confessions. There is no consensus for your viewpoint, and no consensus for your ridiculous suggestions that the article is somehow "exploitative" of Anni Dewani's name. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
As for your continued false claims that "multiple" courts have found the crime to be a a "murder for hire", this has been explained to you many times. There were not multiple judgments that made such a finding. The convictions of both Qwabe and Tongo occured as a result of Section 105A plea hearings. No judgement was made in either case and no evidence was heard. The court documents were simply formalisations of a plea deal reached between the criminals and the National Prosecuting Authority. Those plea deals were based solely on the later discredited versions of events given by those same criminals and were not verified or tested in any way, let alone subjected to proper cross examination and scrutiny. The NPA and court took the word of the criminals and signed off on the deal. That leaves the finding in S V Mngeni. In this matter, the court did in fact convict Mngeni on the basis that the "murder for hire" story was grounded in truth, the judgement based largely on the testimony of two key witnesses - Qwabe and Mbolombo - who were later found to have perjured themselves. This is all detailed and verifiable in the court's judgement in S v Dewani, where the "murder for hire" story was dismantled and shown to be fiction. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Dewanifacts, there's not much point in continuing to comment on this here on my page. You may as well keep your gunpowder dry for when/if Lane99 appeals the ban at one of the aforementioned noticeboards. Bishonen | talk14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen. Dodge noted. And not unexpected. For you couldn't really answer the question truthfully without it leading inescapably to proving my point- that Wikipedia's article is rigged and biased. And shame on Wikipedia for rubbing salt in the wounds of a murder victim's grieving family by, knowingly, permitting a deceitful article to be published under that victim's name.Lane99 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) = "worthy of note, pertinent or relevant". Thomas.W talk 18:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC):::As a user that has followed the edits at Anni Dewanis article for several months, I have to say that I fully support this topic ban for the user in question. The edit warring has been going on too long. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen Could you please clarify the implications of being "topic banned". Specifically, if someone is "topic banned" are they still permitted to edit the Talk page of the topic in question? I ask because Lane99 is still attempting to insert his BLP violating rhetoric onto the article's Talk page. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I had not read any of that before I unblocked, no. It was enough for me to see an admin warning the user against further personal attacks, and then blocking them without any further attacks having been perpetrated. (Incidentally, I misspoke when I said Sitush hadn't edited the page again after the warning; he had; I missed it. But he hadn't made any attacks, so I stand by my unblock.) How would I have tried to defuse it? The usual, I suppose: making a speech, closing the hottest thread, telling a few of the people not to post on each other's pages, asking everybody to take a break away from the computer and have a cup of tea and submit a selfie of themselves drinking/making the tea privately to me by e-mail or face an indefinite siteban… like that, the usual. Defusing is hard. You can't talk to strangers of unknown age as if they're children; being an admin doesn't mean being a parent. I sure as hell wouldn't have done it by blocking any editors. Bishonen | talk10:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
My paws wont handle the boss's iPad, so no pics. I like builders tea, with lots of milk and no sugar. The boss prefers the same, with just a splash. -Roxy the dog™woof11:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I love builders' tea! I was in England for a couple of years in the seventies, and I've been making it ever since. My friends look askance at the barbarism. :-) Bishonen | talk13:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
Thank you for uploading File:Love in a Tub.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Doesn't specify who created the content? I'm not surprised. It was in 2004! I was eight! Well, maybe a little older. But I was very new on Wikipedia. Today, eleven years later, I really, really have no idea. You'd better delete it, Sfan00 IMG. Unless you can find the copyright holder yourself? Bishonen | talk23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC).
That's a wp mirror. The Comical Revenge, or Love in a Tub, 1715 engraving, Montague Summers, Restoration Theatre (1934), Plate X - The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a Tub, a comedy by Sir George Etherege, produced at Lincoln's Inn Fields, March, 1664. The scene represented is Act IV, Scene 6. The engraving is taken from an edition of 1715 in the author's Collection. A higher resolution image can be seen here (Corbis is notorious for "licensing" public domain works.[437]) This illustration appears as the frontispiece for the 1723 and 1735 editions. http://i.imgur.com/zkV1WiL.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/t3QiZsl.jpg The illustrator is Louis Du Guernier. 106.51.28.175 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No, he has made more; look at his deleted contribs. But what worries me is that there may be more, not deleted, out there. That's why I threatened him about coming clean. Bishonen | talk19:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC).
Because it's BLP-related, I looked through all of their undeleted page creations to see if there were more. There are multiple dumb redirects from unlikely misspellings (for example, Say guh --> Sega), and lots of unlikely chemistry misspellings (Rhode Ium) - I started deleting these, but then realized it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and was a waste of my time, and stopped. There was only one that I thought was problematic, not in a BLP way, but in a political POV way: State-sponsored Columbine --> Kent State shootings. No one calls it that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
See, this is the trouble with all the different timezones. That User:Gloquenspiel or whatever his name is probably saw your note while I was asleep, and blocked the sock. (My sock! Reported to me!). Just kidding, Meters. Thanks for reporting. Sock blocked. Bishonen | talk11:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
Apparently not only that, Space, but following your link I learn that "purchasing a box of Thin Mints — our round, mint-flavored cookies with a delicious chocolaty coating — helps a girl learn money management." Not what I expected, but it sounds like an excellent side effect of eating cookies. I'll try it and see! Bishonen | talk14:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC).
I have an entire case of Girl Guide mint cookies in my pantry. They're $5 CAD per box but totally worth it in my opinion (as opposed to the classic chocolate/vanilla ones my little one sells in the spring).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I would kinda like stuff I put last year on my user page to be revdeled (is that the right word?). Not my user talk page, the user page. Is this possible? Juan Riley (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Bishonen. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Some providers like yahoo don't work with sending WP email, so if your email id is from them you get a notification that the email has been sent but the recipient will not get it. There's probably a post on this at one of the pumps. —SpacemanSpiff02:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see you are voting to oppose all, same as me. I just oppose the system and this is the only way I can see change happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You recently blocked this IP for edit warring on flood geology. I see the article has now been semi-protected, which IMHO makes the block superfluous, plus some of the other participants in the edit war have not exactly been nice. Can we entertain an unblock? I could decline the current request as it doesn't address the reasons for the block, but I suspect this would just lead to another unblock request and perhaps a few custard pies thrown in my direction for good measure. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You do see them evading the block with other IPs, right? And their singularly unpromising comments on their page? I'd frankly like to keep the individual out of Wikipedia for a longer time, if it was possible — but it's not. As for unblocking the particular IP, sure, go ahead. You don't mind custard pies, do you? Have one (splat!). Bishonen | talk15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
I do, and I do, but sometimes it's worth considering a slightly unconventional route if it reduces the drama level a bit, and I think leaving the article locked will sort everything out in the long run. I don't know about you, but I need a new arbcom case like the price of beer going up again, to be honest. (PS: Any chance of some ice cream for the pie, though?) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you'll have to put the icecream on your face yourself, I don't have any handy. I'll buy you a beer if they do take it to ArbCom. And a keg if a case is accepted. And an ocean of beer if either you or I need to write "statements" or "evidence" for such a putative case. It's a ridiculous notion. Almost as ridiculous as the notion that I'm "too close" to Flood geology to block an edit warring IP. Bishonen | talk15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
It's official - we're all taking Bish to arbcom 'cause we're all getting free beer - yaaaaaaaay!
Hey, incidentally, Ritchie333, as long as you're here, were you talking to Worm or Kevin with this post? Kevin responded — I think — but the threading — you know, your colons — looked like you were addressing Worm. Bishonen | talk16:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. Please sign your talkpage posts. I'm banned from ANI, see the top of this page, so I won't be responding there. I'm quite happy to leave it to others, in any case. They can surely find their way to the IP's talkpage, and all they need to know is on there. Bishonen | talk18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
A most useful and perceptive insight into the 2015 Arbcom elections
My dear darling Mrs Bishonen, how are you - well I hope? I do so admire your fortitude and stamina, I just hope when I get to your age, I have the same strengths and brain cells - although they do say that brain cells decline at about a million a second after the age of 80, so I do admire you so much. Why am I here, when I'm so busy and important, I hear you ask. Well I'm after a teensy favour, my very much demanded little election guide is ready for consumption, and you and your guests here are so clever, you'll know what to do with it - no, not give it an award - I merely want it put in the public domain like the other less perceptive and informed guides. Now do take care of yourself, there's no need to be embarrassed if you need to wrap yourself in a blanket when you go out in your bath chair, it's so cold in that nasty country of yours at the moment. Much love. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (currently in the Cayman Islands)
Right. I'll put it in the category. Floquenbeam transcluded mine to the voter guide template (sorry to use these advanced technical terms, they are quite normal to me). I'll try to figure out what he did. Bishonen | talk19:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC).
Perhaps template edits are best left to Rexx? I've fixed it this time, but you generally never know whether I'll be around or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
A remarkable document. I believe a copy should be sent to every household, as was the late King George VIs stirring letter of encouragement upon the outbreak of the last great war. I trust this inspiring work would have the same stiffening effect on morale, and to help readers better reflect on quite what we are fighting for. Or indeed voting for. With great respect. Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen! I'm thinking the fine Lady Catherine de Burgh may be off her rocker ah I mean er, no I mean off her meds not be feeling well?--MONGO04:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course I'm unwell, you silly man, I wouldn't be editing Wikipedia if I was well would I? Most editors here are grossly unwell - some are even completely bonkers. One Arbcom candidate is even a miracle of medical science. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive my lowly peon commentary...it is rare that I can converse with near royalty as such majesty rarely ventures forth into untamed wilderness such as Wikipedia.--MONGO18:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I can assure you Kudpung that editing mainspace is not something done by people of refinement such as myself. You will find this approach is taken by most members of the Arbcom and a fair few Admins. Like many others, I am here to share my wisdom and wise opinions, not display my education in a vulgar fashion. If you hadn't realised these basic Wikipedia facts. you'll find life on the Arbcom très difficult indeed. Do you see our esteemed Mr Wales writing articles for the common general public? No, you do not! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully realise it is difficult for we humble editors living in terraced houses to appreciate what the nouveau-riche socialites like Lady Catherine get up to, but I'm sure I could dig out a reliable source or two that clearly shows the upper-middle class far prefer the maid to do grotty things like article copyediting and adding {{refimprove}} tags.[1] Indeed, I believe m'Lady actually fired a maid for not following up on those tags back in 2007, and they remain there to this day! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
See, that's where you're wrong, Kudpung. She's the good-hand sock of an obnoxious user who'd be embarrassed to show so much wisdom and humanity in propria persona. Bishonen | talk11:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
I had a hunch and reported the user. I was not aware of the actual meaning. After seeing your block level; i had to know the meaning of "Fap for" --TheAvengers16:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
So, did you try the Urban Dictionary, The Avengers? I never saw your report, actually, sorry about that. I noticed the username when I glanced at the user creation log. It actually looked as if a couple of admins had missed it, since a few other obscene usernames registered around the same time had been quickly blocked before I looked. Very educational, the user creation log. Occasionally I notice objectionable names in my own language, and I bet indefs like those puzzle people (don't ask, and yes, I now know it's a band also, but it's not going to be a username on en-wiki on my watch). Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye out! Bishonen | talk17:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
Thanks
Thanks very much regarding this. I try not to get hot under the collar about vandalism but there was something really rather depressing about this. Thanks again - best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, quite depressing, I agree. When I stumble on that kind of stuff, I'm always rather pleased to notice the hammer in my hand. (Wham!) Thanks for reporting. Bishonen | talk21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC).
Dewani again
I suggest you might look at the edits thereon - including edits by Lane99, "Advocate BG" and an IP each of whom appear to be disproportionately desirous of pushing what might be a POV as the murder being "proven" as a "murder-for-hire". Was the sanction on Lane99 vacated? Collect (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Where has that nice little puppy lady gone? I know she pops in here from time to time, for a glass of wine and rubber of bridge, but she seems to have gone missing. I don't like missing people - it takes me back to when one of our housemaids went missing in the shooting lodge, and we didn't find her until the grouse shooting started the next year - it was all very inconvenient. I don't normally care for Chihuahuas (nasty yappy little things), but I quite like her - so where is she? The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem, protecting is easy (as well as being a blunt tool). I wish I could figure out how to block an IPv6 range such as the one your guest posts from. See me making an effort here: pathetic, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk16:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
You shouldn't give up on this user, who is clearly a sockpuppet of somebody. The cartoon/animation subject area is lousy with them. BMK (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
But I have such a low boredom threshold these days... did you see the contribs? Oh, very well, I'll watch the user talk, at least. Their removing my post as harassive [sic] wasn't a really good sign. Real newbies don't do things like that a lot. (They do blank their pages, but not so much with ridiculous, or any, edit summaries.) Do you have a notion of who the master might be? Also, BMK, did you ping them on purpose? They can't post here. Not autoconfirmed. Bishonen | talk11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC).
No, I did not, so thanks for pointing it out. Concerning HomerS, MarnetteD pointed out to me that it might be this person, who has used similar handles. I'm also keeping an eye on CartoonFan97. BMK (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't keep sticking your nose were it doesn't belong BMK, I've read up a history of you and you gave others users a hard time on here, not just me. Don't listen to him Bishonen. I've done nothing to him at all, I didn't say any threats to him, swears, or anything else. He's trying to frame me and cause trouble. He does this to user's all the time. HomerSimpson543 (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Here's an interesting coincidence:
CartoonFan97 (talk | contribs) (Created on 28 November 2015 at 18:59) first edit: 18:28, 3 December 2015
HomerSimpson543 (talk | contribs) (Created on 28 November 2015 at 19:16) first edit: 22:09, 4 December 2015
There's also the use by HS543 of "our" and "us" instead of "my" and "me". [439]
Take a look at some of the other accounts created in that general time period:
18:56, 28 November 2015 User account DisneyPixarFan1995 (talk | contribs) was created
18:57, 28 November 2015 User account VideoGamesandMario2006 (talk | contribs) was created
Now take a look at some of the names used in the past by the sockmaster Bigshowandkane64:
Marionluigi49
MarioandSonic56
TheSimpsons98
CharacterFan876
Mario Kart is the Best
Sure, it's still a bit boot-strappy, but something like a pattern begins to emerge. @MarnetteD: may have some thoughts. This may be enough to file an SPI, but it'll have to wait til tomorrow, it's late here. BMK (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm actually trying to go to bed, but I keep running across stuff. Look at CartoonFan97's edit summary here:
"An actor alway's needs an inbox"
and compare it to HomerSimpson543's edit summary here:
"Adding infobox, an actor/voice actor alway's needs an inbox for there articles".
Note the incorrect use of the apostrophe in "alway's", a trait also shown in HS543's comment above. Also note that both CF97 and HS543 are terribly concerned with the spousal information in infoboxes. (Diffs easily available).Just some more bricks for the wall. BMK (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
One more thing (I hope). This is from the SPI on Bigshowandkane64, posted by one of his socks (I'm much too tired to dig up the diff on it):
"I don't know why you guy's still keep thinking were sock puppets. were not at all. WikipediaGuy01543 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Note the incorrect use of the apostrophe. I'm going to ping @Bbb23: for him to have a look-see, in case the above may be sufficient to run a CU. BMK (talk) 09:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I just saw the ping and was about to post that the protestations are very similar to ones made in the past but I see that BMK has already made the connection. IMO a WP:DUCK is quacking. BMK, Bbb23 is away until the 16th (or thereabouts) and may not see your ping until then. MarnetteD|Talk16:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. We don't need no stinking checkuser, as the quacking of HomerSimpson543 is deafening. I've blocked and tagged and will add a pro forma SPI. Good work, BMK.
Yeah, I've realized it should probably have been spelled "stinkin'". And no, Ponyo doesn't stink, I quite like Chanel no 5. (Better used in moderation, though. You needn't splash it on like it's Giano's cologne.) Anyway, I may add those socks to the SPI when I have a minute or two. Bishonen | talk11:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC).
Oh I understood the film reference, I simply chose to take offense regardless. I've taken entirely too little offense of late and thought I would step up my game.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't, I was just running my eye idly down the user creation log. (A harmless hobby which has left many traces in my contribs in the past few weeks.) And this was a new user with a name I thought might mean something I didn't quite understand — "bang" is a kind of dubious word — so I clicked on their single contribution. I'd never heard of Asheville. But it's on my watchlist now! Did you ever attend the Bele Chere? Bishonen | talk11:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC).
No, that's more when you see vandalism to a page you watch, revert it, check the contribs, and revert the person's other "contributions" too. Hey presto, you're now watching three more pages. Bishonen | talk00:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC).
Request for lifting ban
It's been months since ban was imposed on me. As you might have noticed, my editing has also reduced significantly. Would you please review the ban now under changrled circumstances. Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count)04:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo, your ban is set to expire on Christmas Eve — not long now.:-) But if you can tell me how you plan to avoid the previous problems with your editing of Indian religious articles (chiefly unreliable sources), I don't mind unbanning you a little early. Bishonen | talk20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC).
There are so many it makes my head spin, but you blocked DegenFarang and one or more of his socks. Another duck to block has appeared Popcorntastesgood. In less than 50 edits total (none in articles I've ever edited), he managed to vandalize my talk page and use the tell-tale phrase "peacock" in one of his edit summaries. I don't know if posting this info to you here is okay process, but it is such an obvious sock that I thought I'd try here first. (Also, this User first registered 3 days after the last Degen IP sock was blocked.) Thanks. 2005 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Posting here is fine. I see they've been harassing you (I've warned them), but I don't see any poker editing — isn't that the major characteristic of Degen Farang and his socks? (Isn't there anybody else who might be angry with you?)
I took a quick look at the contribs in general. The edits to Anders Behring Breivik are fine. The latest edits defending a troll on ANI less so IMO. (I've given the troll in question a discretionary sanctions alert.) Back later, I've got to run. Bishonen | talk11:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC).
Buona sera and Buon Natale e felicitous anno nuovo whatever...Bishonen gallops off in her elegant riding habit.
Good News Mrs Bishonen! We are returned to you from our adventures in Vienna. Some dear little girl, connected distantly with my nephew, was marrying some frightfully important Austrian (not as important as me of course) so we all went across for the 'free beano' (as one of Giano's sons called it). I don't normally like new money, but the groom paid for all our hotels and flights, which I think is very generous, and one shouldn't be too quick to judge. Dearest Giano was taken ill on arrival at Heathrow, I said to him, just because the champagne was free on the flight doesn't mean one has to take it to excess. Watching him and his sons being stretchered across the tarmac was not attractive. I don't normally like his wife, but the poor woman does have a cross to bear. I shall be staying with them until the New Year - so felicitous greetings to you all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
[Bishonen gallops off on a white steed from the Spanish Riding School.] Thank you, dear lady, and the best wishes of the season to you! I can't believe I ever thought your sot of a nephew dashing! Bishonen | talk21:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC).
Chronological order
I think I was writing my RfAr comment at the same time you were writing yours. I'm not sure what happened with the order, but I'm glad for yours to appear ahead of mine, as yours is more succinct and therefore better. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I just e-mailed you, to tell you what Bishzilla does with top-posters. We really said the same thing at the RfAR, didn't we? Only one of us said it nicely, while mine was nasty, brutish and short. Bishonen | talk18:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC).
Brad, Kevin has removed that bit. Perhaps it would be humane for you and me to remove our comments on it? I'm just disappearing outside, but if you agree and remove yours, please take mine with it. Bishonen | talk18:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC).
I've struck the portion of my statement that has become moot. I haven't stricken or removed mine altogether, because I think my last paragraph is still important. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
(Crossing out makes stuff more noticeable, not less, IMO.) Well, our comments have already been commented on, with our names. I guess I'll just leave my words, so as not to force the commenter to cross out theirs… jeez. Bishonen | talk21:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC).
Oh my dear Mrs Bishonen what a funny world we inhabit; I am stuck in a dreary wet London with no hope of escape. Scrotum IV is in dry dock having a new propellers fitted, the Queen has left town and the city is deserted. My nephew is insisting we all remain here for Christmas; I went to Harrods to do some Christmas shopping, but it was full of Americans, why do they all come here in December - I suppose they are trying to escape that Trump man, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't let half of them back in, then I will never be able to get the perfumery counter. Then there's the all these Chinese and the Russians, it's a wonder the earth hasn't fallen off its axis with all this uneven distribution. Anyway, I am here for some information - I need a Wikipedia project to divert me, and my perceptive antenna have been tweaking at something called GLAM - what exactly is it and where do I join? Obviously as one of Wikipedia's more glamorous lady editors I have a great deal to offer. It's such a pity it's not something we could do together, but I am more than happy to give you some beauty tips and advice, should you ever decide to alter your image. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
With your love of culture, a project for Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums should suit you to a T, especially now that it also includes botanic and zoological gardens. Those might even be able to provide a home for your superannuated Pekes. Join here to contribute content and expertise. Bishonen | talk15:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC).
Need longer block on 81.183.217.1
Hi. Regarding User talk:81.183.217.1, after their one week block expired, the IP went right back to the same personal attacks against Anna Frodesiak and disruptive editing. Can we get a longer or indefinite block now? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
No indef on IPs. But it's good and static and clearly used by the same... hmm... some words occur to me, but I suppose I'll just call it the same "user". Kudpung has placed a one-month block; I'd have made it three if I'd seen it first. Never mind. They'll be back I'm sure, they're quite incorrigible, and then perhaps we can make it six months. Bishonen | talk09:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
Shvrs
Shvrs is back, 15 months on. You topic banned them in April 2014 and then blocked for repeated breaches. They've just tagged Raju as disputed but didn't even explain their rationale on the article talk page & indeed can't because of the ban. I doubt that rationale is any different from their previous disruptive original research etc but what do we do here? Obviously, even tagging is a technical breach because the ban appears to be indefinite. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I've made three blocks in the past 15 minutes... but a little research of your contributions shows me which one you mean. Yes, I'm pleased with it. (I softblocked, where I could have hardblocked.) Bishonen | talk16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
Ban broken
CrazyAces broke his article creation ban by bringing the Mitchell Santa Maria into mainspace. I would have brought this to the blocking admin, but he has not been active for awhile. The article is of similar "quality" to the past ones and I don't want to have to go through attempting to fix the bulk of articles he has reserved in his sandboxes for mainspace. At the very least, I ask for a warning so this doesn't get out of hand, again. Thanks as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup. This saddens me. Crazyaces seems like someone who is trying to help, but just doesn't get it (for multiple values of it). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with that. I have seen him lots at DRV and he simply hasn't grasped how it works round here. When you reach
Sorry, Bishonen you are correct. I based my statement on what CA said at an appeal he made, but looking back I see I misunderstood what he said. I wish there was something that could be done to help CA, I would mentor him if he'd let me. However, with Guy, I'm not sure he quite understands "it".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
What..? I should think so. What's the problem, exactly? Why would arbcom "scrutinize" it? Are you suggesting I might have just deleted the page because I took a notion to delete it? Bishonen | talk11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC).
Unless our good Lady Catherine posts here objecting strenuously to the speedy deletion, I think policy has been correctly followed. Technically, one could argue that G10 ("disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject") could be an additional reason for speedy deletion, but I think that could be a contentious opinion, so U1 is better. I do wonder if m'lady's long forgotten adopted son has had a word. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, I am not accusing you of anything. I'm doing some research that may well be of interest to Arbcom and I'm just asking you some questions that might help me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for me to be here and make public my wishes? My beloved nephew informs me that this entire site is run "off-wiki" by some Irish Republican Conglomerate (IRC?) or somesuch illicit organisation, so while it's in order for others (Admins such as Mr Kubpong) to use secretive methods of communication, it is not permissible for me! I find that quite extraordinary - I worked with my dearest friend, Baroness Trumpington, at Bletchley Park during the war you know - and that was very hush, hush indeed! I wished my page deleted because there is nothing so tawdry as an amusanti after the party is over - rather like Christmas decorations at the end of January when the working classes have returned to doing what they supposedly do best. If Mr Kupbong wishes the page to be re-instated, then of course it must be. As always, my thoughts were purely charitable and of "les Autres" and that of course was not just Mr Kudping. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyway now Mrs Bishonen, enough of poor Mr Kiddleping, you must come and have luncheon with me at my new club. My rather good looking nephew says he wouldn't be seen dead there, which I think makes it quite appealing, rather like one of those rather thrilling underground dens one went to during Prohibition. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just arrived here to investigate that deletion myself! I found it a lot of fun and was saddened to see it get memory holed. (I snagged a copy as a souvenir from a site mirroring Wikipedia, so not to worry.) Blythwood (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm here to investigate this investigation. @Kudpung:, has anybody emailed you about this so called user sub-page deletion incident? If so, please save any and all such emails, with full headers, timestamps and hashes, naturally, in case there is a case related to this case. Thank you so very much. Lastly, are you, or have you even been, a communist. JehochmanTalk14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Titusfox, but I think I'll pass. In my world, role-playing games are for boys and the boyish, not for little old ladies. [/me resumes her knitting.] Bishonen | talk20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC).
Could you please take a look at user Legacypac edits. He is removing candidate lists for different Miss Earth pageant years. He has nominated plenty of AfDs without much explainations. Just being kind of disruptive. Atleast take a look. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please ask somebody else or take it to ANI, Babba? I really don't want to go near, let alone immerse myself in, beauty pageant articles right as the festive season is kicking off. Sorry, but my heart wouldn't be in it. Bishonen | talk19:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC).
Grrr...it is quite annoying that I, being a hairy woodland beast, has yet to even be nominated for the Mr. Earth pageant....or some gender neutral such contest. Its hard being but a pawn in the game of life.--MONGO19:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I love it Mighty Bishonen! Indeed, it is my cousin Bigsquat, though some ghastly beast put that horrid Sonics tunic on him, likely using some new fangled machine that alters otherwise such fine photographic artwork. Amazed one captured an image of Bigsquat, perhaps he was in one of those rare moods in which he was less seclusive, as we are rarely seen excepting at night when we descend upon unwitting and pesky campers and other annoying infiltrators to our woodland realms.--MONGO20:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Bishonen as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk03:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Dearest Mrs Bishone, just to let you know, I could bear horrid, empty London no more, so dearest Giano has taken me to Sicily for the duration. I arrived quietly and without fuss yesterday (pictured above). I wish I'd stayed in London now, that women Giano is married to is drinking heavily and giving me menacing looks, the children and dogs are out of control and staff undisciplined. When I mention these things, the woman becomes even more menacing. You need to come and rescue me before I'm murdered in my bed or kidnapped by the Mafia. I think I'd like to spend Christmas in Scandabrod or whatever it s your delightful little home is called. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Welcome to pocket ice hotel! More commodious than looks! Full facilities, lingonberry vodka!
Hello Bishonen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You told me about IBAN requests months ago. Right now I am requesting an IBAN request between myself and TheGracefulSlick. [440]. I am asking that you approve this. If I can't get this approved, I will retire immediately after having a checkuser done on my OWN account to prove that I wasn't doing any sockpuppet behavior [441]. Additionally, Niteshift36 has referred to me as "Crazy Aces" a number of times after you warned him about him calling me CrazyAces in WP:AN/I [442] Bishonen | talk 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC) where you stated "Don't do it again. However frustrated you are, it's seriously inappropriate, and, yes, I'd call it bullying." This isn't his first rude attack on me and I had previously made a notice on AN/I about it. [443]CrazyAces489 He deliberately put the space in between Crazy and Aces to subtly annoy me not once, but twice. (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
In the instance, months ago, that you refer to, I bolded the word "crazy". THAT is the difference. Calling you Crazy Aces is normal because that is your name. You'll see people refer to me as Niteshift, without the 36. Not much different that having someone named John Doe III and not adding III to the end of everything. Move on. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Again you said "Crazy Aces" not "CrazyAces" nor "CrazyAces489". You are much smarter than that and were already warned by Bishonen, lets see what Bishonen has to say. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I said Crazy Aces. I already addressed leaving off the 489. You'll find that's pretty common among editors, not just me. As for the space in between words, it's actually 2 words, each one capitalized. Just because I chose to write them like real words, using standard English rules instead of the stylized version is not a violation of anything and I think Bishonen will back me up on this. And oh, your request just got closed.... Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will back up Niteshift here. I warned him back in April about calling you CrazyAces with the crazy in bold, and he promised not to do it again. I think you know this about the bolding, CrazyAces, because I specified it at the time.[444] I think it's silly of you, and potentially misleading, to bring up that singular incident 8 months ago just because Nightshift is now calling you "Crazy Aces". It's quite normal on this site (as well as others) to call a user by their name without the clump of meaningless and hard-to-remember digits at the end. I do it all the time (see my second sentence above). And I don't see the subtle attack in using a space in the name, either. (Though please stop spelling it like that from now on, Mr Nite Shift, since CA objects: the "stylized" version is the name he's chosen, and I'm not impressed by the argument that your version is "standard English".) As for approving an IBAN with User:TheGracefulSlick, CA, sorry, no, I won't. I do believe that you speak in good faith when you say you feel harassed because TGS watches your editing and turns up a lot, but I can't agree that TGS is harassing you. They're giving you legitimate criticism, and if you'd listened to it from the start, instead of cutting up rough, I think you'd now be a better editor. Bishonen | talk19:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC).
Thanks Bishonen, I knew any sensible admin would see my case (for the second time) as being the right one. CrazyAces489 I do not see why you need to retire when you can just improve your edits, it's not too difficult, and if you truly care about what you write about, the transition is simple. Your stubbornness to make the change is both unnecessary and confusing. Whatever your decision, I wish you the best of luck either here or off Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, you are so quick to report all small and many times unintentional mistakes I make that I really can't believe what you say. I am quite sure that you will write on someone's page as you did before that you won't believe my retirement is real. So you really got what you wanted! I was barely editing as it was. I actually enjoyed creating articles and allowing others to build them up (as many of my articles were getting gutted). You can now watch something else! Maybe nurture you growing friendship with Niteshift and other people! This historical minority of the USA is out of here like WEB Dubois. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if "retirement" wasn't a recurring event, it would be more believable. Oh, just a reminder, a new account isn't "retiring" either. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's that season again...
Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Mmmm… thank you very much little Heim. New treats to me! According to Wikipedia, they consist of glutinous rice flour mixed with a small amount of water to form balls which are then cooked and served in boiling water. Yes.. yes.. sounds.. delicious. (The serving in boiling water seems especially exotic.) Bishonen | talk19:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
Buon Natale e Felice 2016 indeed! If I hear that expression one more time I shall truly expire and be buried on this horrid little island People wouldn't be Buon Nataling if they were virtually imprisoned with a woman who is becoming more like a homicidal maniac everyday. If they weren't RCs I'm sure darling Giano would have divorced her years ago. Try to impose some discipline on her children and dogs and she becomes like a mad tigress - I've never felt so unwelcome in all my life. Even the dear little priest, she called in, to talk to me seemed very ill at ease; I couldn't understand a word he said, so I gave him £5 for a new altar cloth, that's generally want they want. I took a look at the alternative you were offering - is there nothing slightly more commodious in Scandabrod? I'm thinking more of a cocktail bar, Michelin starred restaurant type establishment. Otherwise, I may as well stay where I am, even though "she" with a rare touch of generosity (Giano's money I expect), has offered to buy me a plane ticket to Norskaland. Yours ever The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I can quite assure you dear Mrs Bishonen that in the depths of Winter dear old Scrotum Towers is more than a match for any ice hotel, and so it should be - only the middle classes heat their homes to such a degree that they are always unhealthy and snivelling. My staff have all deserted me for the Christmas duration, even beloved Stanislas has returned beyond the Iron curtain and won't return my calls. Giano (normally so abstemious and blessed) has now started matching his wife drink for drink, there's goats in the grounds and a man (obviously a hitman from the Mafia) who claims to be reading the electricity meter. Now! When are you coming to rescue me from this household of Hell and take me to your beloved little Skandabrod - I've quite a few ideas for its much needed redecoration and of course yourself, you have rather let your looks go - there's so much help and advice I can give you. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
For how they used to do it, after they'd finally made Christmas legal again, read Pepys's diary on Dec. 25. (Let's remember that the only group in the West to make it illegal was Cromwell's Puritans.) If you haven't your copy handy, or haven't gotten around to decoding it, you can click on this [445] I think. (Perhaps it's two brackets now? Perhaps it's codecodelinklink noncodelink? It's three w's and pepysdiary and a com, anyway.) The man goes to church -- with his Mrs. and servants -- and then goes to work. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Giano, I'm a little concerned at the conversation between Lady C and Bishzilla above. The monster is well-meaning but lacks tact, and her assumption that an establishment without a restaurant but with two bars would just suit her ladyship (based on some incidents that she has clearly misunderstood) is beyond naive. Please apologize to Lady C for me. I'm sure Norskaland with its sober culture and nativedelicacies would suit her better. What a delightful idea of mrs G's. Bishonen | talk20:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
Sure. But now that you've filed an SPI (good work), I suppose we might as well see what comes of that first. It's of course common that disruptive users jump over to a sock even after quite a short block, even without thinking they're indeffed — simply because they realize the first account has outstayed its welcome and they'd rather start again with a "clean slate" (ahem, cough). Well, that's what we have CUs for. Trying to keep Indian cinema articles clean must be an ungrateful task! Bishonen | talk17:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
Both ungrateful, and understaffed. There are a few regulars who are doing some really good work, but more outsiders (like myself) should get involved because the corruption is widespread. I often wish we admins had the ability to look into IPs, since there are tons of times when I'm convinced that certain accounts are related, or when I say to myself, "he's a sock of someone, I just don't know who..." Oh wells... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I avoid the caste articles like nobody's business. That crap is insane. There are sock operators like LanguageXpert who have, for years, been pushing their perspective of "no, this region of land is more heavily populated with *MY* people's language!" Ridiculous what people will fight over. I didn't notice the SPI swap. Good ol' Bbb23! I can always count on him to figure out the messes. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Would that it were only that mess. This particular case gives me a headache from a CheckUser perspective. You think you want to be able to look at IPs? Nope, you don't. Besides, when you just know an IP address but you have no clue who the master is, you rarely find out by checking. Back to India now for more fun and games.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently reading The Witches, a bit of a pop history book on the Salem witch phenomenon. The author says that the Salem folks were all on fire for reports of a Swedish witch outbreak of the 1680's, where girls, also adolescent and pre-adolescent, reported flying about, and where seventy people were caught up and put to death. I don't know of a heading for that witch craze, but it seems like it would either already have an entry (likely with Wikipedia these days) or deserve one. For all I know, this is as famous an instance of the popular delusions of crowds across the Atlantic as Salem is in America (and might even have its own HaWthornE to bewail it). Eagerly awaiting a link. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
RexxS is right on the reference. The book I'm reading doesn't have a nomenclature for the Swedish event, but she traces the line of influence pretty cleanly. It was the Swedish case being a cause celebre among dissenting groups that kept up with each others' communities "fighting Satan," and then that it was grist for Joseph Glanville, whose work on withcraft was cited by Cotton Mather. She also spots how clearly the children's stories from Salem match the Swedish case among the girls who were parson's daughters, whereas the Indian slave witnesses and the outsider "witch victims" have stories that lack all the flying, all the meeting in a field, etc. In either case, it looks like Mora witch trial needs a scholarly pass or two.
And, needles to sway, Judge Hathorn's grandson made a career out of being ashamed of his grandpa. Every semester I teach "Young Goodman Brown" (but he never learns anything). (Miller obscures more than he illuminates, but he wasn't trying to replace everyone's high school history book.)
The Swedish case seems to have had a lower body count than Salem, but it presents the same set of inexplicable (legal, social, medical, religious) phenomena. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Pyramid scheme
Hello,
I was reading through the Pyramid schemes section on Wikipedia and noticed you were one of the lead editors for the section. Perhaps you would be interested in this article relating to the issue?
It contains a lot of useful information for consumers.
.svg){kind=icon}
Done Blocked by Chillum. Thomas.W talk 18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
I'm going to go and improve some articles now, cheers. NorthAmerica1000 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Remember that your talk page is still semi'd! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
§FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
. Hafspajen (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
... Hafspajen (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC).jpg)
@Sitush. Dear Lady C, you are so wise, but I remind you that the safest house in these parts is Bishzilla's pocket. Indeed Bishzilla wanted to invite Mr Cavalry, but I've persuaded her it would be a forward thing from a stranger. It didn't take until I assured her that you would say the same — you are her pattern of etiquette! Bishonen | talk 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
lists.wikimedia.org) or to the Arbitration Committee. Thank you for your understanding. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed; I'm not sure why I didn't in the first place. The technical data is different to those Amanda Small socks that aren't already stale, but Amanda Small's IP addresses leaped all over the place, whereas those used by Writer freak and Jamesarmistead25 are fairly static and all geolocate to the same area. That could easily be explained by Writer freak editing from school whilst Amanda Smalls edited from home, of course, or by some other change of ISP. The behaviour is very similar to Amanda Smalls. Yunshui 雲水 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
_(mid_13th_C),_f.11v_-_BL_Harley_MS_978.jpg)
Bishonen | talk 16:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
Unrelated to the one you blocked them for. I'm planning on reducing their block to "time served", since the initial block was for 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks, Nakon 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
For services to adminning, the WMF has awarded you a 100% pay rise!
;
. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! in Voce's exquisite hair parlour. 
Well done. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
-- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
_(14586469407).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_with_red_bean_baste_and_black_sesame_fillings.jpg)
Reception hall with sculpture and chandeliers
Icebar
Special Absolut Vodka icebar
Ice chapel for private devotions
Ice bed with wolf furs_by_Alessandro_Falca_%26_AnnaSofia_M%C3%A5%C3%A5g.jpg)
![[74]](http://www.davidduke.com/images/shrinking_pal.jpg){kind=link}
![[259]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DrRogerLibbyin2014-200.png){kind=link}
